Spoiler Policy Edit

Please do not add spoilers for upcoming episodes to articles, or create articles containing the same. Memory Alpha has a strict spoiler policy. Creating and adding to episode pages prior to transmission is acceptable, but data from the episodes cannot be included in articles until that episode has aired. This is why your article on Emory Erickson has had to be deleted. Thank you. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:57, Nov 27, 2004 (CET)

¡Babel One! Edit

¡Great work! --Ŭalabio 02:37, 6 Feb 2005 (CET)

Thank you, Ŭalabio! --Defiant | Talk 01:46, 6 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Hello Edit

You're making fantastic contributions with you episode summaries here on MA. Keep up the work... --Toddas 14:57, 2 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Thank you, Toddas! --Defiant | Talk 15:01, 2 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Edit war Edit

Am i to take it you have a problem with series articles being updated? Try talking to me rather than reverting an edit i made over again. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:44, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

Defiant, I'm getting a little annoyed -- putting links in subsection headers is something that is discouraged by our editing policy.. just because you have a problem with some of the edits I've made to that article, you absolutely cannot keep editting it back and forth between our two revisions! this is really wasteful of resources, and the edit i made to remove links is a policy enforcement, not a style choice -- its so tiresome to do it over and over again!
When you called for a consensus for whether the style of the article should be changed, it would have been much more appropriate to stop editing the article in dispute -- you've removed changes i made that aren't up for discussion! -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:53, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Please see Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation. --Defiant | Talk 14:42, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Good work Edit

Good work on the Babel Crisis article. It's excellent -- Rebelstrike2005 12:38, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Thank you, Rebelstrike! --Defiant | Talk 12:42, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Checking articles Edit

Could you check my Liam Bilby article for me? Its been a while since I saw that episode and all the information may not be correct. --Rebelstrike2005 17:41, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

Sorry, I'm not familar with that episode! --Defiant | Talk 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

ENT: "Affliction" has been made Featured! Edit

Well done on another great Featured episode! zsingaya 09:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, zsingaya! --Defiant | Talk 10:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well done from me as well. -- Rebelstrike2005 19:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Rebelstrike2005! --Defiant | Talk 21:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you a contributor yet? Edit

It seems ages since I added my support. -- rebelstrike 20:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think the bureaucrats have been around here recently. --Defiant | Talk 20:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Is it seven days like the featured articles? -- rebelstrike 20:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The correct term is Administrator. A quote taken from the Policies & Guidelines section of the site:
"If, after a period of no less than seven days, there is unanimous agreement in support of the nomination, then the nomination is accepted and a bureaucrat will grant the member administrator privileges. If no consensus is achieved within fourteen days, then the nomination is rejected."
--Defiant | Talk 20:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know that you haven't been forgotten: I already contacted Harry and Dan yesterday to make them aware of your successful nomination. I don't know how soon they will be able to react, but there shouldn't be any problems... -- Cid Highwind 20:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

DVD pageEdit

Hi, I wrote a note for you on the DVD talk page ages ago, so I thought I'd write to you here instead! I've got a good picture of the 10-DVD movie box set. Also, there's a set with only 9 DVDs, and a separate cover for Nemesis. Are you aware there are also different cover designs for the region 1 box sets of the episodes? I've got examples of them too, if you want them uploaded. Just give me the word! zsingaya 09:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I was just looking for advice! I didn't mean to offend you!?! Anyhoo... I've uploaded the image. zsingaya 12:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Defiant. I just granted you administrator privileges after the successful nomination on Memory Alpha:Nominations for administratorship. Congratulations, and don't hesitate to ask if you have any question regarding your new tasks and rights... ;) -- Cid Highwind 16:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Insurrection Special Edition DVD Menu'sEdit

They're not as good as the previous DVD menu's are they? -- Rebel Strike 13:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought they were better and more colorful! --Defiant | Talk 13:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but Generations and First Contact have great images of the various starships. -- Rebel Strike 13:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise DVDsEdit

I take it by all the articles on ENT Season 1, you have got the ENT Season 1 DVD. What are the special features like? Do they provide any good info on the first season? -- Rebel Strike 13:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have every Star Trek DVD that has been released on Region 2, including the box sets. If you want a better description of the ENT Season 1 DVD than what is available in the article, maybe you should think about gaining access to it or even buying it. --Defiant | Talk 13:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DVD categoryEdit

Has it been agreed on? -- Rebel Strike 23:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • I see it has. Disregard. -- Rebel Strike 23:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shran PicEdit

Just wanted to say thanks for the pic. I appreciate it. :) --Shran 01:00, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Hello Defiant. May I assume that you have the ENT Season 1 DVD? If so, would it be possible for you to get a picture of Krem, the Ferengi played by Jeffrey Combs in "Acquisition"? Tough Little Ship 10:07, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the picture! Tough Little Ship 11:19, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it really makes the Jeffrey Combs page complete! Now, all we need to decide is which one of Weyoun and Shran was is main character? zsingaya 19:21, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Image descriptionsEdit

I noticed that File:Patricia F OMalley.jpg has no description -- could you please make sure to tag any images you upload with a description that contains :

  1. a copyright tag such as {{image paramount}}
  2. at least one link to an episode as a citation for the image's source

Thanks a lot. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:06, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

No problem -- just trying to emphasize the policy as there were several other newer users on who needed a demonstration in using summaries and descriptions. business as usual ! :) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:51, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Episode summaries Edit

You did a great job retooling the summary for "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". I don't suppose you could do the same for "These Are the Voyages...", could you? :) --From Andoria with Love 19:20, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Re: Me? Get angry? Nah, I wouldn't do that. These articles are a community effort, after all. ;) Besides, it was a definate improvement over my original work. For "Voyages", if you could, I would like you to take a look at the teaser and Act One. Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 19:41, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Great job with the teaser for "These Are the Voyages...". Having to rely on the info from my own memory, I suspected a few errors would have crept in there somewhere, as well as some things that could have been worded better. Again, great work! I look forward to your reworking of Act One. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:35, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Re: I actually have access both episodes (and the entire series), but only on videotape, and I cannot keep rewinding the tapes to the fragility of our VCR. Also, I think I may have mislead you when I said I did it from memory - I had actually just watched part of the episode about an hour or so prior specifically for the purposes of writing the summary. When I wrote the summary, I had some quickly-scribbled notes to help me, but that only helped a little; most was from memory. Lastly, I made a mistake here; it was actually "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" that I wrote partially from memory, not "Voyages..."; I had help from a transcript on the latter. Sorry about that. (For some reason, I got them confused... oddly.) Anyways, good night, and again, I look forward to Act One. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:41, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) Okay, just read my response here for the first time since I posted it... you probably think I'm full of it for saying this, but I did actually write the teaser for "Voyages" completely from memory. It was not until Act One that I located a transcript. So, I was right the first time -- the teaser was based on memory, as was "Mirror". Like I said, you may think I'm full of it, but that's the truth. Here's hoping I can one day afford the episodes on DVDs... --From Andoria with Love 18:21, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Just read the reworking of Act One to "These Are the Voyages...". Again, great job! :) I'll start working on Act Two now, although I'm not sure I'll be able to finish it. See you... out there. --From Andoria with Love 02:19, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Just completed Act Two of "These Are the Voyages...", although the last paragraph and a half were done pretty hastily as I am about to head for class. Good luck! :)

Defiant bridge image Edit

Thanks for clearing up the Defiant bridge image. ;-) Ottens 12:56, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Reply Edit

I fully intend on completing the summary for "These Are the Voyages...", but with my fall college classes just beginning, it may take some time. I also intend on returning to "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" when I am finished, if it has not been completed by then. Now that I have access to episode transcripts, I'll no longer have to rely on memory and short scribbled notes to finish up "Mirror" (or any other episode for that matter), but class work will likely intervene with the writing of these summaries. --From Andoria with Love 18:14, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I will attempt to complete the summary for "Voyages" as soon as possible... which may not be very soon at all. But whenever I get the energy and the free time, it will be done. Also, I think you're right about waiting until it is complete, this way you can finish it all at one.
I don't really have any ideas for images at the moment, although I do think a better image of Riker as Chef is needed (one in which he shares the screen with T'Pol). Other than that, I currently don't have any ideas, but I will post suggestions as soon as any come to mind. :) Lastly, thanks for continuing "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". Good luck with that! See you... our there! --From Andoria with Love 19:17, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Image ideas for TATV Edit

Hey there. First, I want to say excellent job with "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" and with the images for Act One of "These Are the Voyages...". Now, although I still have to write the summary for Act Four, I do have some ideas for images to use for the remaining three acts of TATV. I think one or two of these are already available on M/A, but most of them are not.

  • Pic of screen displaying a Pegasus crewmember, as viewed by Riker
  • Riker and Troi touring the NX-01 bridge, with Troi in the captain's chair
  • Shuttlepod 2 following Shuttlepod 1 onto the surface of Rigel X (with pod 1 visible in window)
  • Shran and T'Pol encountering the alien criminals, with Shran holding the glowing casing for the amethyst
  • A pic of the alien leader
  • Shran and Archer in the launch bay following the mission, with Shran holding his daughter
  • The Enterprise-D entering the asteroid field
  • Riker and Phlox discussing Tucker in the galley (I think Phlox is where he got the most needed information from, and also the camera angle is better, with the two characters on opposite ends of the counter)
  • Archer and Trip toasting "the next generation"
  • Trip holding the plasma relays just before he blows him and the aliens away ("You can all go straight to hell.")
  • A wounded Tucker in sickbay, perhaps where he's being carried to the med chamber
  • Riker talking with Trip in the galley
  • An overview of the alliance ceremony
  • T'Pol, Phlox, and Archer saying their goodbyes before Archer delivers his speech... or, even a better, a pic of Archer as he walks away from T'Pol to deliver the speech (frontal view, not rear)

Also, I think there should be a pic of Riker and Troi talking together somewhere on the article, perhaps when they are first talking in Ten Forward or when he finally reveals the truth about Pegasus to her. Either one should do.

Anyways, those are my suggestions. I don't think you need all of them, just use the ones you like (if any, lol!) I hope to have the fourth act completed this weekend (I'll be working on it on Friday, perhaps even Thursday night). Anyways, let me know what you think about those image suggestions. Keep up the excellent work! :) See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 07:06, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

TATV Summary Complete Edit

I've completed writing the summary for "These Are the Voyages..." and it is now ready for its major refit. ;) Parts that definitely need to be worked on are the descriptions of the ceremony. Anyways, good luck, and I look forward to the final product! :) --From Andoria with Love 12:28, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: Well, I don't really consider it a rewrite, but yes, it certainly does need to be reworked some. Just do what you do. :) --From Andoria with Love 14:48, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Screen Caps Edit

I noticed on your user page that you said you had pretty much all the series on DVD and were able to make screen caps from them. You may have noticed already but Zsingaya and I have been building tables for actors who've played multiple character with shots of each of their roles. A few still elude us, however. If you're not too busy, maybe you could help by finding any of these:

If you can find any of these, that's great and if not, that's okay.--T smitts 08:55, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Storm Front screenshots Edit

Hi, I know about the "take it from the show"-policy, but the "microcaps" you made from "Storm Front" are of very poor quality, so I tend to "better nothing than this". Maybe you can find something better from "real life". --Memory 16:56, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree. They're good enough in the context of the show. This isn't the wikipedia here. Given how relatively obsure the images were on the show, I doubt they can get much better than this and though you probably could find something better in "real life", that would be inappropriate. Better this than nothing, I say.--T smitts 19:05, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: Act Two completed Edit

In reply to your completion of TATV Act Two -- It's looking good. Keep up the great work! :) (Sorry I took so long in responding to this, I meant to go back to it earlier). --From Andoria with Love 23:51, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Also, if it's okay with you, could I be the one to nominated it on the featured article page? It'll be described as a collaborative effort between the both of us (and can still be a Defiant-class article), but I would just like to nominate an article for featured status, as I have yet to do so. Please? :D --From Andoria with Love 23:51, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Actually, go ahead and ignore that last request. I suppose it doesn't matter who nominates it, just as long as it is. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:52, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the pictures you've posted. I appreciate it. Not all of us spent the extra $100 (Cdn.) to include a DVD player with their PC.--T smitts 01:43, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)


By, all means, if you've a better pic, upload it. I really didn't care about the angle, so much as if it was quality pic that shows his face. (zsingaya or I will add it to a table tomorrow). Thanks. --T smitts 09:17, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Duras picEdit

Thanks for the uploads of late, but if you don't mind my asking, why did you change the pic of Duras, son of Toral from portrait back to landscape? There really wasn't anything important on the sides and I think it fit better with both the article and Daniel Riordan's character table. --T smitts 05:33, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise episode listing Edit

I've notice you reverted edit of episode list to enable easier editing on the star trek: enterprise page. I would like to understand what you mean by that so we could come with a standard for all the series (I actually copied the original modification from TNG to simplify editing too, see Coke's talk page). Also, what about pages like ENT_Season_1 and the other? Should we change these (season x ep #) too?

Sorry for the signature, still new here. For the episode number, I understand that automatic numbering could be flawed, but still would like to know more about the definition of true numbering of the episodes as, for what I could see, they are listed in order in every serie where the episodes are numbered.

Rcog 03:04, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: TATV Edit

Excellent job, as always, my friend. Definately Defiant class and it is now certainly worthy of featured article status. :) Unfortunately, I don't really think nominating it right now would be a good idea, given the comments left during the nominations for DS9: "Crossover". I was about to ask whether it would be wise to do so given the circumstances, but Schrei brought up the issue on my talk page before I could get to you, and now I think I agree we should lay off nominating episodes for a little bit. As I said in my reply to Schrei, I really don't think there's a major rush in nominating it as a featured article; just because it is not featured does not diminish the article's quality. But until all the complaints and so forth regarding episode summaries being nominated are hammered out, I think, as Alan and Schrei suggested, we should lay off nominating episode articles... but only for now. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:26, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, you think we should go ahead and nominate it? :\ --From Andoria with Love 16:27, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re: TATV Article Edit

I certainly wouldn't mind collaborating on other articles with you in the future. But it's not that it wasn't nominated as an FA that got to me, it was the so-called reasons they gave for not nominating it. Others have done complete summaries for episodes and those became FA's, but just as I participated in one, it was "too good" or "too detailed" or some bs like that. Sorry, but I'm not crazy about spending weeks on an article, doing the same thing you and several others have done, only to be told it's different, too detailed, and shouldn't be nominated. After reading a few of the comments, I just stopped paying attention to the nomination page altogether. Other episodes summaries that were just as detailed have been nominated, yet now everyone's like, "Ooooh, no, it's too good to be a featured article." Now I know how Gene Roddenberry felt when the passed on "The Cage". But, yeah, if there's any project you wanna work together on, we can do that, I just prefer not to waste time on episodes anymore. And, uh... I apologize for the lengthy rant/response. :\ --From Andoria with Love 02:25, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Removal of TATV FA nominationEdit

I don't really understand your reasoning for removal, the nomination had been added less than 10 days ago. Is this a personal issue? -- Cid Highwind 11:44, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Semantics aside, it definitely was the intention that any nomination should stay on the nomination page for ten days. See the 2004 discussion regarding that policy here: Memory Alpha talk:Featured article policies (first section). Anyway, could you please comment on the suggested new policy so that potential semantic issues like this can be avoided in the future? Visit: Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy/temp-- Cid Highwind 12:19, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Next time you find an error or loophole in one of the policies, please just bring it up on the talk page. It would save all of us some time and work... Thanks, Cid Highwind 23:02, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

TATV Edits Edit

Just wanted to say I think you're doing a great job editing the TATV article. :) I guess it was a bit too long, even compared to other episode summaries on MA. Let me know if you need any help... not now, though, b/c I'm going to bed. ;) --From Andoria with Love 12:14, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Re:Temporary FA nomination policyEdit

Depends... ;) If it is more than just correcting a small error here and there, I'd like to see it brought up on the talk page instead. Not because I don't want anyone editing it, but because it a suggestion for discussion, and I think we can't come to a real agreement if everyone just edits the page. If it is something completely different, you might also want to consider creating your own suggestion? -- Cid Highwind 23:07, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

If it is something that obvious (given that there's already an old discussion stating that this is how it was meant from the beginning), then yes, you'd just clarify that policy and add an edit summary such as rule clarification: "within ten days" changed to "after ten days", see talk page. -- Cid Highwind 23:17, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Request for further comments re:TATV peer reviewEdit

Hi again. I have to get up in about 4.5 hours, so I don't have the time for comments now. I will try to remember commenting later - if I don't, just remind me again. :) -- Cid Highwind 23:40, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Please help!Edit

I'm trying to follow MA guidelines, and not lose my temper but I feel that some of the newer users keep targeting me! I was editing "These Are the Voyages...", and didn't realise my edits were too much. Vedek Dukat left a message stating that the page should not be edited further and that my edits were too often. He didn't even contact me on the article's Talk or my own, and I know that this action was personal. I've contacted you as I have previously read that users are advised to contact other users when such a situation arises. Please help me! --Defiant | Talk 21:48, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • For some reason it seems easier to reply on your page with your text added than to split the conversation over both our talk pages. Anyway, I left Dukat a message (User talk:Vedek Dukat) and removed the template he added, you made 9 edits in approximately a day and a half, I see no reason for what he did, so yeah. Hopefully that is something like what you had in mind. --Alan del Beccio 22:16, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

POV inputEdit

(I'm sending the same text to all the admins that are currently active, so I apologize for cut and paste):

I've been having a conversation with a new user on (my talk page regarding how to write an article on M/A in the proper point of view, that is from within the Trek universe (in the case of objects, people, places, ships, etc) rather than from the outside looking in.

My understanding of this website, from day one, has been that it is the internet version of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and have never had any difficulty understanding it any other way. This user thinks otherwise. I'm to the point in the conversation, and I'm surprised no other admins have thrown their hats into the ring yet, that I would like to ask for a little assistance, as I believe we shouldn't have to have any "policy" (per se) on such a straight forward and frankly "common sense" issue, either by starting a separate talk page or to Ten Forward. Whichever the case, and no matter how many articles we have written in the point of view which I am defending (that being roughly 10000) this user does not seem to understand, and we do not seem to have any page (aside from a subpage Cid had in his archive that I found) that I could use as an example (btw, the user in question more or less snubbed off Cids page anyway). So please, anyone else willing to assist would be much appreciated. I can't seem to better defend a point, a method and a style that is so "ingrained" into my brain/our brains as "normal" any other way than I have, as being right, without getting out a big stick -- and thus far this user has been an exception, as I have had experiences with countless other newbies and they seems to catch on to our style, well except one other, rather quickly.

Anyway, I should also note, that I am aware of this users attitude and previous conflicts with adminstrators from other message boards (from my old Starship Modding days) and am somewhat in a position of a conflict of interest -- because frankly I believe this individual would rather go out in a blaze of glory than work our well established conformity.

If you need an example of the work in question, just compare the perspectives of the original contributions of the user to the draft rewrites I made in the respective histories. Thanks so much! --Alan del Beccio 18:51, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

image request Edit

I'm sorry, I didn't know that I was doing something wrong. I uploaded two pics of the NX-01's sickbay and removed the image request and put it under "fulfilled image requests". I thought that it was the task of the one that provides the images to remove the request. I'm still pretty new to memory-alpha, so I don't yet know all the ins and outs. Sorry! I'll write a message into the summary box the next time. --Jörg 23:45, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Article of the week Edit

I'm glad to see you took my suggestion on the talk page into consideration. :P I actually think that's a fine choice because it's the result of community effort and a compromise on the length issue. Also, thanks for opposing it and sticking to your guns, since I think a lot of us were too eager to rubber stamp it (ie the act issue). --Schrei 01:28, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, I agree completely about TATV, although to be honest I don't prefer long summaries (despite writing several). I ranted once about needing to stop writing novels but that was more my mood than my opinion. It's personal preference and not grounds for automatic disqualification. Oh and rubber stamp means you blindly approve it. --Schrei 01:49, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Rest assured that you have my vote (assuming I get around to reading the whole thing). ;) --Schrei 02:08, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

what are you doing???? Edit

stop reverting my legitimate edits!!! -I AM WEYOUN 02:28, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletions Edit

Please use MA:PFD if you would like to delete redirect pages, as it is not your decision to make. Thanks. Vedek Dukat 00:30, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Schematic image - Thanks! Edit

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for uploading the image of Reed showing the schematic of the original Enterprise in "In a Mirror, Darkly". I appreciate it. :) --From Andoria with Love 01:24, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

TATV continuity Edit

Regarding your last edit of the continuity section on TATV, I don't think there was an error here. Mayweather's exact words were that they had known each other for "close to 20 years." I think 18 years is pretty close to 20. ;) Also, when he said "he taught the Captain how to scuba dive somewhere off the coast of Florida", that didn't necessarily mean that was how they first met. It may have been when they first become good friends, but it was never stated that that was how they first met. Just thought I'd share that with ya. :P Again, great job with the edits. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:04, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Green picEdit

Looks pretty good. I'm trying to see if full-size but as you probably know, it can take a while for the image page to update itself. Thanks, though! --T smitts 01:23, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)


The Green pic finally updated itself and it looks fine. Pity we only saw him briefly on a small screen, huh? If ENT had gotten a 5th season, perhaps Manny Coto or Mike Sussman could have given us a Green episode (or perhaps even a Green arc!) --T smitts 02:33, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Shuttlepod 2 Edit

It should be complete up until the end of season 2 (I don't have Seasons 3+4 on DVD yet, so I can't say anything about those episodes) I might have forgotten some appearances, where you only see the tip of a wing of Shuttlepod 2 parked in the launch bay, or something similar uneventful, but the main appearances from Seasons 1+2 are there. --Jörg 18:29, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I checked my Screenshots of "Sleeping Dogs" again and Shuttlepod 2 is only seen parked in the launch bay. I guess I made a screenshot of this minor appearance, because not just the tip of a wing is seen, but the whole front of the Shuttlepod. The other two uses of the Shuttlepod during the episode are Shuttlepod 1. The other appearances of Shuttlepod 2 are usually from episodes, were you see two Shuttlepods at the same time, so you know that the second Shuttlepod is seen as well ("Two Days and Two Nights", "Bounty"), or from episodes, where you know that the first Shuttlepod is still on a planet or someplace else, so the second Shuttle must by Shuttlepod 2 ("Detained", "Desert Crossing"). I think the only time where you can really see "Shuttlepod 2" written on the hull is in "Strange New World", apart from the appearances in the launch bay (Again, only Seasons 1+2, I don't know about the rest yet). --Jörg 13:28, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review Edit

On the Nominations for Featured Articles page you mentioned a "Peer Review" process. I wasn't aware Memory Alpha had a peer review process. Am I mistaken, or were you referring to a more informal process? — THOR =/\= 20:09, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • The way MA implemented it is pretty obscure - you have to go to Talk:These Are the Voyages... (episode)/peerreview or Talk:Occupation of Bajor/peerreview to find it. --Schrei 02:25, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there anywhere to list that you're requesting a peer review though? I trust it's not just hoping that somebody'll stumble across the sub-page. — THOR =/\= 05:19, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New images Edit

I noticed some recent images of yours have neither labels nor links. I'm actually curious myself as to where File:Osama Bin Laden, time stream.jpg came from (obviously somewhere in ENT). Perhaps you should look under "my contributions" or "unused images" next time you're on - if it hadn't been someone whose contributions I was familiar with, I might have nominated them for deletion! Makon 19:10, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, is there any chance you can write image summaries, cite and add the proper copyright info for those images? There are at least a dozen, please and thank you. :) --Alan del Beccio 23:16, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ep Sums Edit

Howdy there, "D". :) Just wanted to tell ya that I've cleaned up the summary for "The Search, Part II", but it could definitely use some improving upon, and the summary for "Endgame" also needs work. The efforts made by Slamlander to write these summaries have been great, but, as with the summaries I have written, I think they could use a Defiant-class refit. ;) While you're writing those, I can be fishing around for images to go along with them. Speaking of images, could you tell me how to reduce the size of screencaps from sites like TrekPulse? The images in their original form are way too big! Anyways, let me know what you think or what not. Catch ya later! :) --From Andoria with Love 08:02, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Quantum universe Edit

1st of all I posted here instead of Refit of the Week so I could apologize for our rough start. You probably guessed this but the edit any page idea was tempting, and I wanted to push buttons at first. But I'm trying not to piss people off now, and I'm glad you seem to have understood! I'm curious what you have in mind (maybe a rough sketch) for Quantum universe as Refit of the Week, I'm not familiar with the idea and would be open to helping refit it in the future if I knew where to look other than TNG: Parallels (I missed that one). Vedek Dukat 02:43, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Late Reply Edit

Sorry for the delay in replying to your last message. I have not yet been able to figure out how to resize images from TrekPulse, and I was hoping you could help me with that. I did it once on my old computer, but am having trouble with it on this one. Anyways, what is it you want me to help you with for the background section of "Broken Bow"? Whatever you need, I'll do my best to help. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:13, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I have added a few more background tidbits since our last conversation. Let me know what you think (if it's too much, or what not). Some of it might need to be reworded for length, but I personally don't think it's much of a problem. Oh, and don't forget to check out my talk page for my replies to your latest comments. :) --From Andoria with Love 08:29, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

claymore Edit

A claymore is a Scottish sword. But, interestingly, Montgomery Scott was unaware that he was not looking at nor holding a claymore sword. The only explanation for this can be that the alien responsible for making Chekov believe he had a brother (when in fact he was an only child) also made Scotty see a claymore where there wasn't one.--Mike Nobody 02:25, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Broken BowEdit

I am already familiar with the reviewing process but I simply did not had the time to review it while this process was running. When I did had the time, peerreview was already closed and the article entered FA nomination. The only way to add my remarks was on the FA page. As far as I am concerned a closed peer review does not mean comments about its contents/structure cannot be made on the FA page. The alternative would be to remove FAC status and re-establish peer review again, but as far as I am concerned thats up to the person who requested the review in the first place.

About the human/vulcan relationships. I simply missed it in the article, and felt it needed to be addressed, but for the moment had no real idea how it should be put in the article itself. As per peer review policy that would be up to the one who asked for the peer review. -- Q 20:54, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Re: Deanna Troi Edit

College happened. I have been meaning to review episodes of TNG for further info on Troi, but I have simply not had the time.The same goes for Captain Kirk -- I simply have not been able to get around to it. The free time I do get I usually spend on here, and I do what I can here but I have not been able to follow through on my intent to update Troi and Kirk. Hopefully, with Thanksgiving break coming up and winter break after that, I'll be able to do something. --From Andoria with Love 09:18, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Merging articles Edit

I was wondering how to merge articles properly (for example, the former "Kathryn Janeway's Coffee Addiction" into Kathryn Janeway). I see various ways to do this. Some will delete the article the content is being transferred to, then will restore the article with the new content in it, then delete the unneeded article. Some will simply delete the unneeded article and paste the information into the other article, which I think is what you did. I wasn't exactly sure what to do, so I just left it to someone else. Is there a certain situation that calls for one way or another? If so, how do I go about the deleting/restoring/merging thing? --From Andoria with Love 09:38, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Re: Deanna Troi (2) Edit

I'll get on it as soon as I can. At the moment, I'm starving, so I gotta eat somethin'. As for the merging thing, don't worry about it; Mike created MA:MERGE‎ to explain the policies. Thanks anyway, though. :) --From Andoria with Love 13:38, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I just read the details you added on the Troi page. There might be some way of shortening the references from "Life Line" and "Inside Man", specifially the Doctor being delivered to the Alpha Quadrant and the Dabo girl being revealed as working for a Ferengi. Those bits, I think, are the only things that someone else might find a bit too "in-depth", although I don't really think that's the case here. Personally, I like it all just the way it is, since it's all part of Troi's involvement with Pathfinder. Specifics are a good thing, so I don't think you should change anything unless you feel the need to or if someone else suggests it. Great job! :) --From Andoria with Love 15:16, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[Comment] Edit

Hi! You do good work, and I figured I'd leave you a message since your talk page looks lonely. Roar 01:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sig question Edit

Hey, D. I didn't get a response from you earlier, so I was wondering, did you get my reply regarding your signature question (found here)? Just wanted to check and make sure; didn't want you to think I ignored you. See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 14:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

image requests Edit asked for it...I put up these requests on the Requested Pictures page a while back but haven't gotten a response. Think you can help?

An image of Minuet from Riker's imagination in Future Imperfect.

Two images of James Moriarty one with Data and/or with Dr. Pulaski; the second of him from Ship in a Bottle, preferably with the Countess, or with Captain Picard. Logan 5 22:07, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Some pictures from "Conundrum" because I'm going to improve the episode page! --From TrekkyStar 47!!!!! 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • One of Ro...well not in her standard uniform.

Nonsensical deathEdit

I know you got a new project and all (interesting wikicity, I might look into it), however, you shouldn't declare your old self as dead just to get some much-needed visitors. Also, I don't think a redirect to Wikipedia, even from a user page is allowed. A soft redirect would probably be okay though.--Tim Thomason 17:10, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A "soft redirect" is simply a remark that says something like, please see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, for full information. It is to prevent accidental jumps from one wiki to another (common on regular wikicities to the Central Wikicity), so that a user doesn't get confused and doesn't have to press the back button to get to the wiki he was at. It is usually used as placeholders for some help pages and the like.--Tim Thomason 20:53, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Sorry I didn't get your email, as my Hotmail account was deactivated. Do you want to send it again? Tough Little Ship 23:29, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vedek's admin Edit

Actually, this whole experience has sorta turned me away from being a regular editor on this site, and I'm sorry I used that word, I guess it was a poor choice and I apologize again. I'll now return to Wikipedia where I know how things work better, because I think things might be a little bit different here and what I find unfair from my experiences on WP might in fact be considered fair here. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's a different site, of course. I still might make sporadic edits, though. I'm glad we could clear this up a bit more. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ten ForwardEdit

I'm cleaning up TF, so I would like to know if this has been answered somewhere and so can be removed? --Memory 23:15, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

X-Files Mulder Edit

I long forgot where I got the pic of Mulder. I'm pretty sure I came across it searching google images for something to fit the article.--Mike Nobody =/\= 05:51, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Storm Front II Edit

Hi, it's my first time commenting here, hope it will look OK. Anyway, I saw you wrote that King Hussain appeard on the archive footage of Storm Front II. However I searched for his image on that scene and didn't see him. I saw most of the others. Can you tell me where he appeares there? Thanks  :) subatoi

Star Trek gifs Edit

Hi there, are you the same Defiant who runs this website? [1]. Just wondering. Zsingaya Talk 18:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Counter-Insurgency Program Edit

Can you suggest what category this article should fit into? Thanks. Maybe there should be some sort of category for things like red alert and this counter-insurgency program. Zsingaya 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions! Its good to get some feedback finally, it seems like people have stopped promoting articles for featured status recenlty, and have become uninterested in the voting process as a whole.
As for the category, you might like to comment on the category suggestions page. Thanks! Zsingaya 15:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spock's Brain rollback Edit

Hi Defiant. Sorry for the rollback, I was going to explain myself on the talk page of the IP address, but was just checking some other recent anonymous edits for vandalism. I'm pretty sure that Spock's Brain is not "usually regarded as one of the best Star Trek episodes" - quite the opposite, in fact. Which is why I thought that this comment, added by an anonymous editor, could have been an attempt at mild vandalism and rolled it back. If you think that what is now on the page is "POV" as well, we could try to rewrite it in a more neutral tone... -- Cid Highwind 12:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We should probably discuss article POV on that article's talk page... I agree that it could be toned down a little... Regarding your signature, I just did some tests. I guess you added something like "YOURNAME]] [[OTHERLINKS" as you nickname in the preferences? Apparently, that hack no longer works. Instead, add to your nickname field the complete signature as you want it to be (including all wikilinks), and check the box "Raw signatures" below. That should work... -- Cid Highwind 12:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ENT Season 4 screen capsEdit

I'd be happy to get you the screencaps, if you could tell me where the moments in the episodes are where the screens are shown? I bought the DVD on a whim and haven't really watched it. -- Tough Little Ship 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image citations, etc Edit

When uploading new images please remember to given them wikified descriptions with proper citations and copyright information. Please see File:Recovered Borg drones.jpg, "File:TNG badge.jpg" and File:Na'kuhl Technician.jpg. It is usually easiest to remember this if you add the desciption when you originally upload the file. --Alan del Beccio 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Gvsualan (this comment added by Cid)
Moved from User talk:Gvsualan (this comment added by Alan)
That seems highly ungrateful! I went out of my way to provide this site with screencaps. It's the last time I'll be doing that, that's for sure! What's to stop you from adding the citations yourself if you see it as such a high priority - pure laziness? I'm no longer interested in Trek, anyway, and only continue to contribute here to help out without watching any of the old, boring series again. There are far more members of this site who are obviously interested in Trek and have more time in their days. Sorry, but I do neither. --Defiant 00:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Was that really a serious reply? The above request by Alan wasn't unreasonable at all, and actually made in a polite way - it is necessary to at least have a citation and a copyright disclaimer on an image description page, and it is usually less work for all involved if that is added when the image is uploaded, not at a later point by someone else who would have to do some research or, worse, guess where an image is from. You, as an admin, should know that... -- Cid Highwind 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, on two accounts, it seems to me that it was. First off, let me quote: "If you like/dislike my contributions, or have any issues you'd like to bring to my attention, etc., feel free to leave a message on my Talk page" -- as I did. Secondly, each day I am here I "go out of my way" for this site, and yet I do not require nor expect any sort of recognition for my work. "Laziness" would hardly describe my efforts to this site. As much as I enjoy caring for and maintaining this site, it is just as much my duty to make corrects as it is to point fixable errors out to others. Considering you are an administrator, you of all people should be most careful in following our own procedures. Otherwise, I'm sorry you find this site too ungrateful for your efforts. --Alan del Beccio 19:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CSS help Edit

How did you get rid of the white from pages like log-in and Special:Preferences? I've left this question at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css, but there's been no reply. Plus, I was told you were the user who made the changes. --Defiant 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Generally, everything in the Mediawiki:Monobook.css that is called "preferences", "#prefsection", "#userlogin" or "login" might be connected to that - also "fieldset" and "legend", which is in use on the preferences page at least. If your wiki CSS is a total conversion like this one, you might want to start by copying the whole instruction set and work from there. If it is a single element that still shows a wrong color, it would be best to have a look at the HTML code itself and compare to the available CSS formatting. If you need help with that, let me know and add a link to the wiki you're trying to change. -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise image Edit

I was curious as to why you reverted my clean up of the "destruction of the Enterprise" image...the original is too dark to show detail, and the color balance is way off. I had it cleaned up.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

new paris image, et al Edit

hey defiant. i wanted to tell you that you did a good job finding a replacement for tom paris' top image and also i'm glad somebody finally tried to expand harry kim's page a little. regarding paris' pic, i was wondering if it would be at all possible for you to crop the image so that it is more consistent with his shipmate's photos. as you may know, i've been trying to clean up the voyager crew's pics and have tried to set a single proportion (not size) for all of the headshots based on the promotional images used in the TNG cast's articles. it's just a suggestion, but i think it gives a little more polished look to the articles when they contain a little continuity. i've also been trying to make the format of the sidebar consistent with the format used for janeway's. anyway, thanks and good job! Deevolution 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for moving the new Article of the Week live yesterday. Did you want to nominate an article for next week? If not, I'll scour through the list and find one, but I figured I'd give you first dibs. I'm striving to ensure that the AOTW and the Did You Knows are kept fresh. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

File:TAS Enterprise.jpg Edit

I was going to remake "File:TAS Enterprise.jpg" from the DVDs, but I dont want to steal your fun if you plan on doing it. So tell me if you want to and I'll leave it alone. --Bp 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last edit to "Viewer" Edit

Hi. Could you please comment on your removal of 26KB of text from Viewer here: Talk:Viewer. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Romulan crewmen Edit

Hi! I've noticed that you've uploaded the two pics of the Romulan crewmembers. One of them was played by regular stuntman Vince Deadrick and I think you switched the two pics. Look at Deadrick's site and compare the pic of the Romulan crewman with his pic as Matthews, his face is not the same.I think he is protrayed on the orther pic. Perhaps you can correct this? Thanks. – Tom 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mhh, perhaps I was too fast. When you look at this pic Walt Davis you see the Romulan crewman also did not look like Walt Davis. Are there more Romulan crewmembers in this episode ?– Tom 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image citations and licensesEdit

When uploading images, such as:

Can you please ensure that you put a quick citation (ie, what it is, episode it appeared in), a license (for screen captures, just use {{image paramount}}), and a category (Category:Memory Alpha images is generally a good fall-back). Thanks for your cooperation! -- Sulfur 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Defiant usually gets to them in short order. I think we just need to me more patient. --GO RED SOX 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kai Winn Pics Edit

Thanks for uploading and adding a few more pics of Winn. I always thought that article was image-deficient. ;-) – Cleanse 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for input regarding video-wikis on Memory Alpha Edit

Hi, As you may have heard, in the next few days there will be a new collaborative video feature on Memory Alpha. The feature is based on technology created by Kaltura, where I work. We’re really excited to have our technology on Memory Alpha and are hoping that it can be a great tool for the Memory Alpha community. I am contacting you and a few other administrators hoping that you can tell me where you think collaborative videos might fit in within Memory Alpha. We have a few people that are great with rich-media, and that are active in the community and would like to get a few videos rolling as soon as the feature goes live. For example – what pages do you think could benefit from a collaborative video that any user can add, edit and remix? Are there 5-10 top pages/topics that you think could be cool to add videos to? Any specific ideas of the kind of videos the community would like? Maybe a tribute to a certain character, or possibly a video that talks about why people joined Memory Alpha, etc. Any input you could provide would be excellent, we’re hoping that the Memory Alpha community gets familiar with the collaborative video feature and enjoys it. Thank you! Lishkee 09:21, 15 February 2008 (EST)

TrekkyStar Edit

A bit harsh, don't you think? I'm sure it's annoying, but still... :/ --From Andoria with Love 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

different borg queen image Edit

hi. it's an all new screen capture. i think i did a little bit of tweaking to the color and contrast, but nothing major. photoshop is what i use to adjust, resize or punch up pictures. it's a pretty great utility to have. but in regards to this image, there wasn't much done. Deevolution 19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet AcademyEdit

In which episode of Star Trek: Enterprise is Starfleet Academy mentioned? --Dr. Zefram Cochrane 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rift Fleet HailingEdit

Haven't been here in a while but I have a question. Do you know how I can get permission from Paramount and/or CBS to host my fanon story on the WEB? Myn main user page in on Memory Gamma and I had to remove my story their until I get the rights to host it online. Can you please help? Rift Fleet 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom ParisEdit

What MA policy would that be? --Alan 23:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Alan! I neither know nor care whether the policy is included in MA's ever-changing, always confusing policy dos-and-don'ts - like other "help" pages on wikis (including wikipedia), I have particular problems with reading the information - but I do (and did, at the time of my edit) recall it being decided in discussion that both an old pic and a new one should be used for character tables. If this specification has changed recently, feel free to change the page back, and sorry for any confusion caused. I personally have very little time for this site these days, especially since it seems like every time I visit here, another "moderator" is personally harassing me - correct me if I'm wrong but, this time, it seems to be you! That's obviously a sorry state for ANY site to be in! IMO, the emphasis on "conforming" makes the admins little better than the Borg! --Defiant 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how exactly I am being harassment? Someone changed something, tagged on some claim about being in accordance with MA policy (especially when we really don't have formatting "policies"), and curiosity got the better of me, so I had to ask. Sorry for being curious. --Alan 01:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Gvsualan block Edit

I'm not sure what the rationale was for blocking Alan, so I have unblocked him. I do not see any evidence of harrassment, and even if he actually was harassing you, it is improper for you to block him as the alleged victim. I'm not sure what the issue is here, but I hope that it can be worked out amicably.--31dot 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've responded here, just to keep the discussion in one place.
I am not ganging up on you or anyone. I am not a buddy of Alan's. I saw a block of someone who I did not expect, and examined the situation and came to the conclusion that the block was not warranted. I have no idea what the dispute between you and Alan consists of.--31dot 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have brought this up before, but my main bone of contention with Gvsualan's edits has been the number of images I've uploaded and, upon visiting, have found those same images to have been tampered with, by Gvsualan - credited to him rather than me, removed altogether, replaced by a clearly worse version, etc. This is not only images that I've personally uploaded, although the vast majority are. It is harassment to follow another user around the wiki and alter their edits merely because you have a problem with that contributor, as Gvsualan has been doing with my edits! This is clearly personal and, of the aforementioned alterations to my edits, I can list many, many examples (let me know if you require citations!) Although I at first suspected a conspiracy was in progress and that sarcasm was being employed, I now believe that Gvsualan has acted alone in intending to personally attack me. As I said before, I am completely willing to try to settle this amicably. --Defiant 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not harassment to fix percieved issues with the manner in which edits were made, unless Alan stated that he did so because of a personal issue with you or a dislike of you. If you felt that your original actions were proper, you should have begun a discussion about them first and stated why you feel that way.
It is well known on a wiki such as this that no one "owns" any of the articles or their contents, so I am almost sure Alan is not doing so to take credit away from anyone else.--31dot 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm having difficulty with understanding your most recent post, due to finding it too general. Could you please specify what you mean? I take it you think I have been over-reacting?! --Defiant 23:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. If you felt Alan was reversing proper edits(whether they had to do with you or not), you should have discussed it with him first, and if that failed, then with the community in general, before taking the extreme step of blocking another admin(even ignorning the obvious conflict of interest, as I've said already) If you also feel that he was taking his actions due to a personal issue with you, that should have also resulted in a discussion first, and then if it was determined that his behavior broke policies, a third party should have taken action.--31dot 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to discuss it with Alan but he acted innocent of harassment, simultaneously implying denial of personal abuse, and was evidently sarcastic (see his second post in this thread for the example!) Since he did not seem willing to have further discussion with me about this, asking a rhetorical question and ending with a sarcastic "apology", I did not further the issue. However, I have previously also tried to discuss his behavior with other admins, including Shran/FromAndoriaWithLove, but this was not resolved and Alan has nevertheless continued to harass me, without anyone stepping in! Having unsuccessfully sought assistance from the admins that was not forthcoming, I felt I was left with little option but to ban him. All in all, I think we should "let bygones be bygones", as it were (yes, I'm even willing to do this with Alan), and work on both creating and then implementing our "removal from adminship" system so that, if a similar case were to occur (regarding my feelings towards Alan's persistent alterations to my edits), there will be a forum for users to voice their concerns and hopefully find the kind of help that, in this situation, I struggled to obtain. --Defiant 23:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly you've only spent time patrolling your own contributions and not the site's in general, because my edits encompass far more than merely your contributions. So to make such a claim towards me is simply arrogant.

Also, regardless to what you choose to believe, my last reply was genuine. In fact, based on past experience (due to the volatile nature of your replies), I've done nothing but tread lightly with my comments on this page.

So boiling this down to today: thrice now I've been accused of harassing you without the least bit of explanation, hence – with regards to my last reply – "I'm curious how exactly I am being harassment?" – especially when you cite some policy you claim not to care about that doesn't even exist (re: my second sentence). Finally, "sorry for being curious..." was in response to the accusatory reply to what was an outrageously simple question in the first place. I never got a reply to any of that, which clearly has much to do with whatever today's problem it, therefore, I dispute any innocent claims about trying "to discuss it with Alan". --Alan 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "volatile nature of your replies"? Also, would you care to cite the 3 times on which you've been "accused of harassing [me] without the least bit of explanation"? Both these statements are accusatory and vague. I did try to discuss it with you, Alan, which was why I said, "correct me if I'm wrong but, this time, it seems to be you" - showing that I was open to reading your view(s). You voiced your opinion, implying that you disagreed with my perception of the situation, and, since it was clear we probably were not going to reach a general consensus between the 2 of us, about whether you were actually harassing me, I avoided conflict by discontinuing with the discussion. I have explained myself as best I can, today, so I don't understand where you're finding the "thrice" number from! Alan, I would be willing to work with you over individual, smaller issues but it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere fast by arguing about whether you have been harassing me or not (with me still believing the former and you still arguing the latter). I hope, by now, I've made myself clear - I am open to co-operation, and do not wish to argue. --Defiant 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is not saying a word for three months on the subject, and then blocking someone you are angry at for a month (beyond what we do to even standard vandals) "trying to discuss it?" It would seem to me that is the opposite, since it involves three months of not talking before you pulled out the banhammer. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? I have to clarify "volatile nature"? How about your reply to my simple, concerning comment three years ago, where I brought up the reminder about the guidelines for image uploads?

While most people would say, "ok" or "thanks for reminding me" or something of that nature, I get personally attacked and told that I'm lazy, ungrateful and thrown under the bus because I've spent so much of my time caring about the maintenance of this site, thereby sowing the seeds for this insane conspiracy theory of your regarding my harassment of you. At that very point it was 'you who made it personal towards me for reminding you of something the 3rd of four times, yet it was just that one time to me, of those times, that you lashed out.

Personally, I don't know where you get the gall to accuse me of making "persistent alterations to [your] edits"? The whole "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" aside, I've made over 98,000 edits to this site; over 20,000 just to images. If you do the math you might find that the odds are pretty high that I am going to edit something someone else has previously edited, yourself included. Obviously there is an unfortunate inevitability of being ultra visible that goes along with that kind of exposure, but to sit there and feign victim to me (or anyone else for that matter) is purely self righteous or self induced.

However, if me-harassing-you is what you still truly believe, then it is not only you being harassed here, because myself, and all of the other admins (apparently excluding yourself), plus cobra, morder and several others are equally guilty of "harassment" for each and every time they've ever addressed, reverted or tweaked any other user's contribution on this site. Whatever I have apparently done to you is done here to everyone by everyone. This is a wiki, it is always changing, everyone is always editing everyone's content, tweaking, manipulating, re-uploading, etc – get used to it. --Alan 04:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for a somewhat civilized answer, Alan, but your reply was frankly just as "volatile" as usual! I can see, as can anyone else viewing this thread, that you don't wish to work anything out and are instead eager to continue targeting me while claiming that you do the same to everyone else's edits. --Defiant 08:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Constitution class docking port.jpg is one example of the kind of thing I was talking about, earlier - I uploaded the original version of this image, and remember doing so (although my memory isn't quite so good as yours, Alan - three years is quite a stretch! lol!) I guess I'm just confused why the history of this image does not reflect it's true history! As stated above, the only images I've seen like this have had Alan's name appearing as the original uploader. --Defiant 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Because, in the past, we had the "best practice" to allow admins to delete earlier image revisions after they had been replaced by better quality files. Since you don't own the rights to a simple screenshot any more or less than the next guy, this has never been a big deal. This was done to conserve disk space - however, since even deleted image revisions are now stored for potential later undeletion, this practice has been given up more or less (though not strictly forbidden, mind you).
Anyway, I agree with the others that this whole course of events, from you blocking another user against all policies (=misuse of admin rights), over not really being able to cite any single block-worthy offense of that user, to continued attacks on that and other users, is absolutely unbecoming of an admin. Since we don't have any "de-admin" rules in place yet (they are currently being discussed elsewhere), I'm not going to do anything about it right now - you may already consider this a reprimand and issued caution towards a later "de-admin" in case of repeat offense, though. -- Cid Highwind 12:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Cid Highwind! I don't agree that I've been responsible for "continued attacks on that and other users" and I'm sorry if anyone feels this way! However, I would be eager to nominate myself for de-adminship, if such a procedure were created. I don't recall familiarity with MA's rules & regulations being a condition, upon me originally being considered as an admin, but this issue has nevertheless repeatedly cropped up, the longer I've been a member of this site since then. The nomination system for adminship seemed more like a popularity contest, more concerned with worth of user's edits to the content pages than any such knowledge of the constraints of user's rights, so maybe this should be changed if it isn't already! --Defiant 13:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the following statement has been a part of Memory Alpha:Administrators even back in 2004: "It's best for the nominees to exhibit a good understanding of Memory Alpha's Policies and Guidelines and to be an active participant in the implementation of those policies for various articles." With a self-nomination for admin, people might have expected that you actually considered yourself familiar enough with the rules.
In any case, and for what it's worth, any "de-adminship procedure" would only be necessary to act against the will of the admin in question. If you no longer want to be an admin yourself, you could just request the removal of admin status. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - it says it's "best to" have such an understanding, not that each admin must have that knowledge. Also, that same paragraph begins by stating, "There are no strict standards for becoming an administrator". As this is the case and because my intentions have always been to help the community at large (I was thinking particularly of new users experiencing the same difficulties, regarding seeming incorrections in image histories, when I voiced my concerns), I've decided not to request the removal of my admin status. Again, sorry if my behavior has been seen to be "attacking", as this was far from my intent! --Defiant 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Still, it somehow escapes me how knowledge about the rules and guidelines that you, as admin, are willing (and supposed) to help uphold could be considered some unimportant and "optional" quality of an admin candidate. If the wording of that paragraph has confused you during the past four years, please consider this a reminder to finally familiarize yourself with the rules! Thank you. -- Cid Highwind 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The wording of that paragraph makes it clear that such knowledge is optional, so maybe the wording needs to be changed. --Defiant 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Account merge? Edit

Just wondering, as it looks like you're registered as an administrator, would it be possible for you to transfer my contributions, pages and settings to the name ProtoKun7? I no longer go by 'Prototype 01', and I would like to adjust my accounts to the new name I've registered. TIA Prototype 01 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk but I'll reply here too. No you cannot merge accounts you can stop using one but any contributions must stay under the original account. — Morder (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was doubtful. I believe it is possible to change the name of this account, but would it involve the deletion or renaming of the other account too? Prototype 01 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Krauss talk Edit

For your attention:

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

Youtube video 23:22, October 24, 2009 (UTC) Strength and Honour 23:22, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Scimitar shuttlebay Edit

Hey. I've uploaded two images of the shuttlebay area of the Scimitar. You can see them here. Hope this helps. – Tom 03:02, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

IAMD Citations Edit

Hi there Defiant. Regarding your additions to "In a Mirror, Darkly", could you please tag which notes were from the audio commentary, as per MA:CYS? So something like:

This helps later users know where the information came from, and is also vital if notes start to get rearranged or added to (as they do ;-). Thanks.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:38, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, sorry to be a pest. :-) – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:35, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Image Request Edit

Hey I saw on your user page that you would be willing to find images from DVD's. If it's not too much trouble would you be able to grab a screenshot of the Equinox blowing up from "Equinox, Part II" (season 6, ep. 1)? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Nero210 18:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Defiant 11:51, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Nero210 23:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :) --Defiant 23:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Voyager info Edit

Hey, just want to say, great job on all the various background info for the Voyager episodes. I'm having a great time reading it. --Delta2373 22:52, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been an ambition of mine to try to beef up the background info on Voyager episode articles for a very long time, especially the early seasons (I love the heavy sci-fi stuff, before the Borg was overused)! --Defiant 22:55, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
It would be interesting to hear what everybody on Voyager's staff thought about the infamous season 2 episode "Threshold". I've never heard what Piller or Berman or Taylor thoughts on it are. --Delta2373 22:58, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

My Blog Edit

My blog is for star trek reiveiws of the episodes and/or movies. Sorry i started all offical like. I want to post a link to this site on my blog and wanted permission please get back to me as soon as you can. "Live Long and Prosper" and also Pray to Q so he doesnt smite you! ScarletScarabX (Talk) 21:57, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

You don't need permission to link to Memory Alpha, we just won't be linking back, since if we did we would have to link to everyone's blog. - Archduk3 22:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Question Edit

Hey Defiant, I need some help. You being a Voyager fan, I was wondering if you have seen recently or own VOY: "Bride of Chaotica!". Apparently, there is a reference to plasma injectors in the episode and it is the last reference I need to complete the article and I don't own the episode. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Delta2373 08:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm only a selective fan of Voyager and don't much like the later seasons, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I haven't seen any of the Captain Proton stuff in years and, even though I do own the entire series on DVD, I'm really quite busy just now. I did a quick scan of a transcript (here: [2]) of the aforementioned episode, but it came up with no results. I'd suggest you try asking someone more familiar with the later seasons of Voyager. Otherwise, I'll rewatch the episode later today (once I get the chance!) --Defiant 09:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Delta2373 09:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I just watched the entire episode and couldn't spot such a reference. That, coupled with the unsuccessful searches for the term in transcripts leads me to believe there is no reference. Hope that helps. --Defiant 22:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Defiant. By sheer coincidence, the episode actually aired the other night and I caught it. I did not catch the reference either. I guess the missing reference to plasma injectors must have been a mistake. In any event, thank you for helping! --Delta2373 08:12, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
No problem! :) --Defiant 08:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Help with production/FX categories Edit

Hi, Defiant. Over at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions#Production company sub-categories, we're trying to figure out a way to break up Category:Production companies. I made a start at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox, but ran into some difficulty divvying up the special effects/post-production companies, in part because I don't have a very clear understanding of the different stages of effects production and post-production. Archduk3 suggested that you might be able to help. Could you have a look at the discussion and the attempt in my sandbox, and advise on a better way to categorize the various companies? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe 05:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Thank you for uploading the picture of Androna. :) – Tom 10:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. For years, I'd been wondering what she looked like! --Defiant 10:48, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Image licensingEdit

Can you check this image and determine if the CCL is appropriate for your reproduction, or if you'd prefer it be simply public domain?

I'm trying to clean up the last of our unlicensed images. Thanks. -- sulfur 20:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but, for the life of me, I can't remember where I obtained that pic from! It's an oldie, being more than 5 years old. I'm guessing that I probably got it off another website, though; I doubt it's my own work. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! --Defiant 21:38, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think that I sussed it out. It looks like one of Kris Trigwell's works that is available on ST-Minutae. I've labeled it as such. -- sulfur 01:05, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; I managed to locate the image at [3], and I now remember originally taking it from there. So, thanks for reminding me! :) --Defiant 01:20, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

My Kobali edits Edit

Dear Defiant,

Thank you for quickly pointing out (on User:Sulfur's talk page) how my spate of many mini edits on the Kobali article was bad practice.

I really am sorry for the many changes I made in a row. I can (ie, the iPod will let me) make minor edits to sections without crashing mobile Safari. I kept catching little errors. That's why I made so many edits in a row. It's terribly difficult to copy the entire article into a text editor, make a minor change, and then paste it, especially when I keep catching little copy edit errors. If this is wrong, let me know.

I had thought by marking them "minor" I was hiding them from other users so I wouldn't cause them confusion thinking I was on an edit-marathon or edit-war. The last thing I want to do is cause trouble. I'm a newbie (and dunce) at massive collaborative wiki editing. I only wish to help if I can make a positive difference. If I'm a nuisance, I'll stop making life harder for you vets.

Please advise. I need some guidance.

Also, if you could, please let me know if what I did to the article was good/prudent/wise/helpful or wrong. I really am curious if my first major edit was a success or failure.

Thanks. I much appreciate your help.

Note: I left a similar comment on Sulfur's page but addressed your concerns here for your convenience.

Best regards,

--Cepstrum 13:44, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


It sounds like you are using the JS category select option. I would suggest going to your preferences and putting a checkmark beside "Disable Category Select". -- sulfur 14:27, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the advice. :) --Defiant 16:12, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Theme Designer Edit

Please note that the "Theme Designer" is an admin-level tool to change the layout of MA for all users and not just for yourself. I just had to revert your changes to green background. If you want any of that changed for yourself, you will have to do that via User:Defiant/wikia.css. -- Cid Highwind 19:37, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't know that the theme designer changed the skin for all users. I'm still finding my way around this new, crappy wikia skin! Apologies. --Defiant 08:39, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
In fact, if wikia doesn't want people erroneously thinking it's an individual tool, I don't know why they would have put it in the "My tools" toolbar; that just seems a bit stupid to me! --Defiant 08:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder if it's worth letting Wikia know about this placement problem. -- Cid Highwind 09:32, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, frankly! I'd imagine, though, that they've got tons of other criticisms over the new skin. I also personally don't think I'd have the patience to communicate with them again, after all the things they've gotten wrong (and still get wrong)! --Defiant 09:38, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

The New WikiaEdit

I have heard some bad news about it from various wikis but i like it here. i can see the Fed Classic font and it lookas awesome! so wanted to ask your opinion. ScarletScarabX (Talk) 00:12, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Borg philosophy: thanks! Edit


I said most of this on the article's talk page, but I wanted to reiterate a personal message to you here: thank you very much for the positive feedback! It thrills me to have reached a consensus via dialogue there. It represents my first time, and it's something I've been highly anxious to do.

And your kind words really made my day. :) I tend to automatically think badly about myself and my edits. You have no idea what a lift you've brought me (I'm suffering from many personal problems and nearly died last night – just one of the life-threatening conditions I'm dealing with!)

So I thank you again. I hope we can continue to have productive dialogue on the talk page until we get the – rather obscure and low-important – article in as good of shape as possible. (I added a section that incorporates your great recommendation of mentioning Eddington's UFP-Borg philosophy comparison in the article's background. I look forward to your feedback on that.)

Thanks again and best regards,

--Cepstrum 13:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think you should be wary of repeating info, which is why I slightly changed the Eddington section. Aside from that, the article's looking really good, IMO! :) --Defiant 13:58, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Gene Roddenberry Cite Edit

Hey there Defiant. Great work on the Voyager pages. :-)

I was wondering if you might be able to dig up a citation for the claim that Tom Paris' middle name was a homage to Gene Roddenberry. It's tagged with a citation request on the latter page. Just a small thing that I thought you might have seen during your work. Thanks. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:47, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unsure of a citation for that, as I've been mostly concentrating specifically on the episode pages. I'm a lot more unsure of general series-related facts, but I suspect the info about Tom Paris is available in the book A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager - it's just a tome of useful info, as regards Voyager! Though I'm a bit busy with non-Trek related stuff right now, I'll have a search for the requested citation and get back to you. --Defiant 12:30, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I found it in the Star Trek Encyclopedia - page 348 in my version, the 3rd edition. But since the only difference (as far as I know) between the 2nd and 3rd editions was the addition of another section, it's probably on the same page of the 2nd edition too. --Defiant 13:02, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I only have the 1st ed. of the Encyclopedia myself, which predates Voyager.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:41, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to have been of some help. :) --Defiant

Special characters vs HTML entitiesEdit

Just to let you know, the "–" character is not on most modern keyboards, so without using a character map program, is difficult to duplicate. We've been encouraging use of the HTML entities (such as –) in its place, including placing the HTML entities into the edit help buttons that show up at the bottom of edit windows. Thus the change I made to Chef that you since reverted. -- sulfur 12:08, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am not sure if I am violating policy or etiquette by adding a comment on another's talk page in response to a third party. Please accept my apologies and correct me if I am!
The whole back and forth changing from the endash ("–") to the either hyphen ("-") or emdash ("—") or something else really confused me. I left a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page. I'd really appreciate some clarification, for I'm hopelessly lost. Could you take a peak at my question on the talk page please? –Cepstrum (talk) 16:58, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
There's 2 reasons why I reverted your edit, sulfur. Firstly, I've been "corrected" on the X-files wiki for using endash;s and been told that the "right" method was using "–"s. I've always assumed that this was true and the latter version is certainly easier to read in the edit view. But now that you're telling me different, sulfur, I'll change to using the long, html method. The other reason why I reverted your edit was because you essentially did so to my change, first; what you technically should have done was contact me (either directly or on my talk page) about it, rather than basically just reverting the change I'd made. --Defiant 22:11, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Every wiki is different. XFiles wiki might like using the direct characters, MA doesn't. And I shouldn't need to contact you for every single change I make to your edits, should I? That's why I made the change, and then came and posted on your talk page, to let you know about the change. -- sulfur 22:44, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you should be contacting me (or any other user) any time you change back an edit I (or anyone else) has recently made; it otherwise constitutes an edit war, here on MA, and what makes you think you can bypass common courtesy to other users? If you weren't stalking the edits I make (though I see I'm not the only one you've recently done this to), there wouldn't be many edits of mine you'd be changing back, anyways. --Defiant 22:56, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I added on 16:28, November 6, 2010 (UTC) a stupid, tangential post directed to Sulfur – not Defiant! – here. In keeping with Cid's advice, I've moved the post here, on my special page for archiving my stupid, long, irrelevant posts. It's not even worth summarizing here, for it doesn't even concern poor Defiant! But I've learned now to stick to salient, succinct posts, at least as much as I can. Expect no more rambling nonsense from me.) --Cepstrum (talk) 14:02, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your predicament, Cepstrum, but I don't much like my own user talk page being used for such a long message addressed to another user; it doesn't seem very appropriate. Personally, I'm not interested in personal arguments generally and am trying to edit MA while attempting to reduce these to a minimum. I'd advise, Cepstrum, that you check out the page Memory Alpha:Etiquette; there's definite ideas on there that you can cite if an admin is in breach of any of them. Remember that admins need to remain within the policies and guidelines, too. And take it from me – the last thing an admin wants to be is in breach of those! I'd also highly recommend that you try to stop taking things as personally as you clearly are. I'm finding that a bit difficult myself, due to the edits that at least seem to be personally targeted, but the more we can get on with editing MA and leaving personal stuff aside, the more productive it's gonna be. --Defiant 19:11, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I posted a ridiculously long apology. Suffice to say, I had apologized profusely. Again, I moved this stupid monologue, posted 17:38, November 7, 2010 (UTC), to my archived section of dumb posts, found here. So you can still read it if you desire. Sorry!) --Cepstrum (talk) 14:02, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I will read more about it later, but... Edit

does wikia use the same syntax that wikiHow does? As far as links go, it looks like it. Reading will also tell me that, but thought I would start a dialog and find out an easier way!! I am an editor there.

They certainly look the same (in so far as programming code). The two are bound to have their differences, though (apart from the obvious cosmetic ones). Not being a regular user of that wiki, I wouldn't know and I don't think I'm the right person to ask; sorry. --Defiant 12:41, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

"Nero, Number Two" FA Nomination Edit

Hey Defiant, I have done more work on Nero, Number Two and was I hoping you would reconsider your objection on the nominations page? Even it you still object, I appreciate you looking at it anyway. -- TrekFan Open a channel 01:48, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update but, since my objection, I've been keeping an eye on it (as I do with any article under FA consideration), and would have changed my vote by now if I thought differently to when I made it. Besides, even if I did reverse my opinion of the article, it would require additional votes before being accepted as an FA. --Defiant 01:58, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Thanks for looking and yeah, I am aware it needs more votes. -- TrekFan Open a channel 02:02, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'd like to add that I feel both that the article has a lot of promise and that that is largely capitalized on, though I also feel that there's quite substantial room for improvement with it. From the start up til this point, I've felt that a peer review process would be more beneficial to the article than an FA nomination. --Defiant 02:12, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Since it is currently undergoing the nomination process and there are 2 supporting votes, I will leave it to run it's course. If the nomination is unsuccessful, I will most definately take up your advice and put it up for peer review. Thanks again. -- TrekFan Open a channel 03:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Headings Edit

Hi there. I noticed you capitalised the headings on "Visionary" and I just wanted to get some clarification really. I had been told previously that we don't capitalise headings on here. Though I think headings should be capitalised, I went with it and didn't capitalise them in articles. Can I just confirm with you that we are indeed capitalising headings? -- TrekFan Open a channel 18:05, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Trekfan. Sorry but you seem to have been misled. Whoever told you that we're "not doing headings" is either just plainly mistaken, stupid or both! Look here for the right answer: Memory Alpha:Manual of style#Headlines and sections. Personally, I completely detest the use of lower-case lettering for article headings. However, I know that some other archivists feel the opposite way, and wish all article types were with lower-case headings, so I'm happy to compromise, with the episode and movie articles being the odd (but wonderful) exceptions. --Defiant 18:32, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Defiant. I too believe that headings should be upper-case so that clears it up for me. Thanks again! -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:33, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

See also Memory Alpha talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization in Episode Pages.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:44, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if you want to learn more about the debate, TrekFan. --Defiant 12:39, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Hope and Fear Incite Edit

Damn, that was fast. :-p –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:06, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Defiant 00:44, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Votes Edit

It's not surprising that you didn't know about the nomination being a vote, since I just recently changed guideline to reflect that because: A) There was no rule saying the person who nominated the article couldn't vote for it, and B) it seemed kinda asinine to make the nominator actually write out a separate vote, since the nomination made a support vote implicit. - Archduk3 07:02, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the bg info, Archduk3! :) It's just that I'd expect the nominator to be excluded from adding any sort of vote to the nomination procedure, due to the frequency of self-nominations, if you know what I mean. Basically, it seems just like adjusting the "5 votes required" guideline to instead 4 votes. --Defiant 07:21, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

...and now that there's no article up for FA status, your concern has been addressed. The requirement of five votes from separate users for self-nominations should now be pretty clear while still maintaining that "non-self-nominations" don't require a double post from the nominator for them to support it. - Archduk3 00:14, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

X-Files Wiki Edit

I notice you're the founder of the The X-Files wiki? I'm just getting involved in the series now, something I have been meaning to do for a while now. I used to watch it as a kid and now I'm "re-acquainting" myself with it - I'm up to "One Breath" atm. Just wanted to ask for some further insight into your wiki, really. I've seen a couple of articles but is it written from completely in-universe? Do you only use material from the series/movies ("canon") like on MA? etc. I'd be interested in knowing more, if you could spare a few minutes? Oh and on a side-note, your "Dan Leckie Way" wikipedia link doesn't work anymore as there's not an article by that name. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:50, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, The X-Files wiki is not expanded universe. Thanks for the broken link info, by the way. :) --Defiant 11:00, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good. I don't like wikis that are written along the lines of "x character first appeared in x episode. In x episode, he did this..." Once I've got up to speed with the series, I might start contributing to a few articles, see how it goes. Thanks for the info. And no problem! --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:03, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Edit Comments Edit

I just noticed your comments on "Visionary" regarding Sulfur's edit summaries. This is something that I have been annoyed with for a long time and I had no idea that everyone else was aware of it. His edits are sometimes so sarcastic that I want to just post a load of sarcasticness back on his talk page, though I do restrain myself! --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:18, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Protection status of "Visionary (episode)" Edit

Please state, here and now, how page protection of "Visionary" has been "in violation of policy" - so that I can determine what action to take next. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 11:22, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The page Memory Alpha:Protection policy states, "Do not protect a page if you are involved in the process that makes protection necessary in the first place," and, "In general, administrators should not protect pages which they have edited in the past (this includes discussing the article on the talk page)." Sulfur has been involved in the edit war, has edited recently "Visionary" and (now) has also contributed to the discussion on its talk page, in violation of these statements (though the latter wasn't). --Defiant 11:28, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is true that page protection seems to have violated the "letter of the law" in this case. At the same time, though, I have to agree with Cobra (and others) regarding the point that you haven't been above "the laws", either. I've seen some violations not only of "letter", but also of "spirit of the law" coming from you, too. Also, while that is not an excuse, you might have noticed that I was absent for about the last two weeks. I'm back now, will keep an eye on that discussion from now on, and will protect the article again (this time as a neutral person) if necessary. Keep it civil over there! -- Cid Highwind 11:35, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cid. It's good to see you're back. :) I understand that I may have taken this discussion a bit too personally, and sorry for any offense caused. --Defiant 11:39, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Script Book pages + coversEdit

I uploaded covers for both script books, although if you have a better one for the Q Chronicles, that would be nice.

Also, who were the books actually published by? I couldn't find any clear information on that, so left the "owner" for the images as "?" for the time being... -- sulfur 17:04, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

They're published by Pocket Books. I'll probably be able to upload a scan of the cover of "The Q Chronicles", though I'm also a bit busy, as I need to eat soon! --Defiant 17:10, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for helping me with those script book articles, sulfur. I was about to add the blurb on the back covers but saw you got to it first (my computer crashed in the interim!) I'll try to add that upload of "The Q Chronicles"' cover. I'm away to feast! --Defiant 18:05, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Visionary Edit

Hi Defiant, I was hoping you wouldn't mind providing a couple of examples of what you found confusing in "Visionary"? Just so I can eventually get around to correcting it and hopefully get it featured. Thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:45, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Reginald Barclay Edit

I have made some amendments to the Reginald Barclay article. I'd appreciate your comments so we can improve it further if required. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:51, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Your comments Edit

Hi Defiant. I thought you might have something to say about this discussion since you suggested including websites like in the "Visionary" nomination. Thanks! --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to think up something to say, but the absurdity of the opposing comments is too much! If it's not evident to the users who make those kind of remarks, I doubt anything that could change their minds would be. --Defiant 11:31, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything arising from the mild disagreement on the nomination page that warrants such accusations that other users are totally immune to reason and could never change their minds. Also, the only "opposing comment" is yours. I supported the nomination, and Sulfur just commented...–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 13:03, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Did I ask for your opinion, Cleanse? No. This was meant as a private discussion between myself and TrekFan. --Defiant 13:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to have a private discussion, do so elsewhere- any page here can be commented on by anyone at any time. If you don't wish to involve others in your conversations here, just ignore them.(and don't strike out other people's comments)--31dot 13:31, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for those tips, 31dot. :) --Defiant 13:34, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

"Melora" comments Edit

Just wanted to say thanks for the comments you made in the "Melora" nomination. Much appreciated. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:52, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I had a good time reading the article! :) --Defiant 12:02, April 15, 2011 (UTC) linksEdit

When putting reference links to the site in articles, can you please use the {{}} template? It allows us to find links there more easily and readily, especially when they decide to do their bi-annual reorganization. Thanks. -- sulfur 12:06, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Not a problem. Thanks for letting me know what it's called; my previous lack of that knowledge was the only reason I didn't add the template! --Defiant 13:34, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

No worries. When I created it, I didn't really make a big deal of it, as it took 2-3 iterations to get it right and doing what it can do now. To be honest, its existence came completely out of their latest re-org, and the need to go through all of our links and either fix them or convert them to use the {{broken link}} template. And let me tell you, that was a right pain! :) -- sulfur 13:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can imagine it would be! The template makes sense to me, sulfur; it's a good one, IMO. :) --Defiant 13:54, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Starlog #213 Edit

This January you added two citations (first, second) from Starlog magazine issue #213 to the article Tuvix (episode). However, Starlog issue #213 was published April 1995, 13 months before "Tuvix" aired, and pages 50–51 which you cited have two two-page spreads on Earth 2 and Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future.

Could you double-check those citations? — THOR =/\= 03:55, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Good catch; my bad. It should actually be #231. --Defiant 15:31, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Deleted scenes and "would" Edit

Hi there Defiant. Just a reminder that you should cite your sources when adding entries to the deleted scene page. That page is no different from any other. :-) Thanks.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is any different from any other, I think it should be, Cleanse. My opinion counts for something too, you know?! In this case, I'll assume that the matter has already been settled by community consensus, but I thought your tone could have been a little more accommodating! --Defiant 13:32, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Defiant, I'm not sure what kind of issues you appear to be having with Cleanse here, but he was simply noting that your recent additions to the deleted scenes page in the Voyager section did not have citations listed. There is no need to take offense at what was a calm comment and reminder that you forgot to add citations. It happens to us all, and you do not need to be defensive about the situation. -- sulfur 13:44, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
I agree; I've no need to take offense or be defensive about Cleanse's post, which is why I'm doing neither. --Defiant 13:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
In response to both Cleanse and sulfur, the post that started this thread was not a "reminder" (though clearly meant in that way), as I didn't forget – not including citations with my additions to the deleted scenes page was a conscious decision, on my part, made in accordance with the guideline to make "bold" edits. As I said, I think that particular page should be treated differently from other articles. --Defiant 14:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, any sort of citation for the scene that was removed from "Eye of the Needle" and added to "Cathexis" (which the latest of those additions by myself pertains to) would automatically have to include "original research," which I was under the impression we're trying to avoid. The book A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager consistently talks about the scene as a part of "Eye of the Needle", and I've been unable to find any sources that specifically make the connection, saying outrightly that it was incorporated into "Cathexis". So, what are we to do, in that case?! I am (and have been) perplexed! --Defiant 14:24, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
So, the scene (according to the book) was part of "Eye of the Needle"? And then showed up in "Cathexis"? In that case, cite the book, as it notes that it was part of "Needle", and perhaps rework the sentence slightly to put the citation at the relevant point, as the citation that it is in the teaser is... er... the episode itself. -- sulfur 14:55, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that, sulfur. Just to clarify, the book does discuss the scene's deletion from "Eye of the Needle", just not any info about its obvious presence in "Cathexis". I'll assume from your last post that we're not as dead-set against original research as I originally thought we were (maybe I've been thinking of wikipedia!) I've now added a citation to the bit about this scene. I'll look for citable page number(s) soon, but I'm currently busy trying to search for page numbers for the "Heroes and Demons" article. Once I've done that, I'll concentrate on the deleted scenes section about VOY. --Defiant 15:14, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider that specific example original research myself. Original research is when you go through 30 episodes showing that Sisko is a anarchist (for example) based on his behaviour. It isn't pointing out the obvious (such as "scene X was deleted from episode Y, but used in episode Z"). Anything that can be readily verified by visiting a source (whether reference book, interview, or the episode itself) is not original research. -- sulfur 15:21, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, got it. I'll try to remember that, now. I always thought it meant own/personal research, therefore drawing a conclusion where something is not outrightly stated but implied would be included (e.g. the presence of the deleted scene in "Cathexis"). Something else that I don't understand but pertains to this site (there's quite a few such things!) is the quibble that some people have over the word "would," saying it's grammatically incorrect. I've always thought, "Surely context plays a part in that issue, too!" Do you know what I mean? --Defiant 15:37, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
The issue with the word "would" is all about context. It's not grammatically incorrect, but it can be grammatically awkward. Used such as "X would be used in Y" is awkward language and better phrased as "X was used in Y". Any time the "past imperfect" is used, it is (by necessity) rather awkward. As we strive to be an encyclopedia, we try to avoid the use of imperfect tenses wherever possible. State simple facts "X was used" not "X would be used." The biggest issue is when a sentence is written in one tense, then changes to another when the "would" is introduced. That's what we're trying to avoid. -- sulfur 15:52, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Well, yeah; that's the example of context I was considering bringing up, as it does seem grammatically awkward. But the word "would" is used on other occasions, too (such as quotes, etc). Are we saying that those sort of cases are acceptable? --Defiant 15:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
A related issue is whether we employ our other decisions, re: words, in quotes, such as "Human" and "The Doctor" having caps. --Defiant 16:12, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
If the quote is from a book, written interview, etc, then the quote should be verbatim. If from an episode, video or audio interview, etc, then our styling. -- sulfur 17:39, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
Cool – that is how I've been doing them (for the most part, anyways). Thanks for all your advice, sulfur. :) --Defiant 17:51, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

In response to the claims advanced somewhat further above, you'll note that MA:CYS is a policy that applies to all pages. That policy has community consensus, and it is unnecessary to rediscuss on each page. MA:BOLD does not mean redefine policies on each page.

I'm still not entirely sure why you thought that one individual page shouldn't have citations, but if it's because of your issue regarding one episode's citation, your concerns could have been brought up on Talk: Deleted scene. The logic to not cite anything because of problems with one citation escapes me.

I also called it a reminder because as an administrator, I was assuming that you had a general understanding of policies and had just forgotten to cite a couple of edits. This seemed more likely than you deliberately deciding policies didn't apply to single pages. Obviously I was mistaken.

You can hopefully tell that I am not happy. I left one friendly reminder to help out, with a smiley indicating good faith. Without any further comments from my part this led to accusations of having an unaccomodating tone and attempting to stifle opinions. This is very trying.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 22:06, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "stifling opinions" but I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of having an unaccommodating tone and, IMHO, that's something quite different from suggesting that you could have a more accommodating one. Just as I took no offense to you, I didn't mean to cause you any offense, either; I'm sorry if I have. I'm not quite sure what your problem is, though. --Defiant 23:03, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
After some further reading, I've realized that you've kinda been out of line with MA guidelines, Cleanse. MA:BOLD states, "It's always better to have some content (as long as it's on-topic and not patent nonsense) rather than no content at all [....] It's perfectly all right to dive right in and add your own ideas to make the article better." Therefore, not only should you just have been happy that I added info about the deleted scenes (rather than me continuing to let there be no info about those scenes, on the deleted scenes page) but, as far as I can see, there was nothing stopping you from adding however many citations you felt appropriate, yourself! I appreciate that you did this for the one about "The Defector", but I think you'll just have to come to terms with the fact that not everyone shares your opinions; I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but that's just how the world works. --Defiant 23:25, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
With your last comment on the MA:BOLD bit, that suggests that our text on that policy is out of date. It should note that citations are required. I'll try to remember to update that tomorrow. Citations are important, information with no basis makes us no better than IMDb. -- sulfur 02:20, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
  1. In the future, if you don't want to accuse me of things, then don't make it sound like it. I wrote my initial comment in a polite manner. I would suggest that if you don't want people to think you are accusing them, then don't dash off replies with exclamation marks and personal complaints. Okay? :-)
  2. I welcome Sulfur's idea to update MA:BOLD. However, it should be obvious already that it does not permit experienced users to violate policies and then expect others to clean it up for them. As an administrator, you are meant to uphold the policies and the general practices of the wiki. Other administrators leaving a reminder/heads up is not intended as an attack, but just to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
  3. It's not my "opinion" that pages should have citations, it's the policy created by consensus. You are not above policies. In fact, I am confused by your sudden resistance because you have participated in discussions about the format of citations (so have contributed to making the policy), have added citations and "citation needed" tags to existing information etc. Clearly you know the policy on citations and why this is important in an encyclopedia. As I said above, if you are concerned with how to cite something, or that it may be original research, just bring it up on the talk page.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:13, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

1. It's a text-only website, so it's impossible to make any posts "sound like" anything; I'm not entirely responsible for the way you read (as in "red") my post and it seems a bit laughable that you'd find an exclamation mark offensive (or any other type of frequently-used punctuation, for that matter). I made no "personal complaints" – it was a suggestion, just like you wrote "I would suggest...."
2. Okay, for the most part... though I didn't interpret your "heads up" as "an attack" – as I've stated multiple times now, it did not offend me. I also believe that the purpose was not to be offensive.
3. It's clearly both your opinion and general consensus that all pages should have citations; otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing for it so strongly. The need for citations is not, actually, in dispute. It's clearly just been assumed that that is what I do have a problem with, as at no point have I been asked why I think the deleted scenes page should be an exception, which smacks of arrogant presumption on your part; you're evidently not interested in what I have to say, so why ask? Your conclusion, this time, was far better; thank you! :) I agree that I am not "above policies," but as both a member of the community and an admin, my voice/opinion is just important as yours. That's the way it should be, anyway. --Defiant 09:07, July 6, 2011 (UTC) were suggesting that my tone should be more accommodating, but posts don't actually "sound like" anything? Huh? %-)

Anyway, I am glad you have decided to follow policies again. Cite your sources OR make your case to not do so on the talk page first, and the wiki will run smoothly.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:08, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

If you don't be a nitpicker, the site will run smoothly, too! --Defiant 09:47, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gang Edit

As much as I am appreciative of an apology, I don't think I particularly took your initial response any other way then I could have taken it. You didn't feel the need to respond on content nor did you just let my response be. You started by pointing out why my opinion was of lesser value. And then by going on to do it off as "what the people in general feel". Unless its the MA policy to deter people from joining, I would very much appreciate being treated with slightly more respect without below the belt comments, unless you believe I did something to not earn that respect. -- OvBacon(Talk) 14:26, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't take my initial comment to you in the way it was meant and I would have said something along the same lines to anyone else with as few edits or evidence of uncertainty regarding the English language. But I certainly didn't mean it as a personal attack. As far as I can see, you're doing very well with editing so often and I believe that, if you keep it up, you have the potential to become an admin. I simply recommend that you might want to wait til then to add your insights to discussions about admin-related issues, such as merges. --Defiant 17:44, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
A merge is not an admin-related issue. Anyone can speak to merges (and pretty much anything else) here on MA. -- sulfur 17:52, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
The actual merge should be done by an admin, because of the deletion required to merge the page histories, but merge discussions are open to whoever wants to post. - Archduk3 18:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. That's definitely news to me, but alright. Sorry, OvBacon; my error! :( --Defiant 18:59, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please remove my admin status, then? In light of this misunderstanding, I clearly don't even have as much knowledge about what constitutes admin-related issues as I thought I did! --Defiant 19:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Accepted of course. I would also like to make clear that I have no problem with it if the opinion of an admin has more weight than my own, I just want my opinion to be heard and through participation in discussions to learn the ways of MA. -- OvBacon(Talk) 19:19, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

If you want to surrender your admin powers, Cid or Sulfur can do it.--31dot 20:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Done. -- Cid Highwind 21:18, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cid. :) --Defiant 22:49, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Compendium Edit

The Star Trek Compendium has multiple editions, so the edition number should be mentioned in the citation. Thanks.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:02, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I was unaware of that. Guess I should have looked it up; sorry. --Defiant 10:30, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Input requested Edit

Can you take a look at Memory Alpha:Files for deletion and weigh in. Further input is need to break the tie. Thanks. - Archduk3 07:54, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Done, giving my honest opinion. Glad I could be of assistance. --Defiant 08:42, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

That's all I ask, and I tend to agree, that images should be used on Wikipedia somewhere. - Archduk3 08:48, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Rura Penthe aliens Edit

Hi there! I noticed the note you've recently added to Rura Penthe inhabitants, and it's probably a long shot, but I wonder if your source has anything at all to say regarding this unresolved discussion? If it's the same alien, it would be exactly what you were talking about in the note. -- Capricorn 14:40, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember finding any particular info like that. I probably would have noted it if there was. --Defiant 17:52, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Gav Edit

In adding some background notes, apocrypha and external links to Gav, I also had to add an {{incite}} to the note you just added about the episode's script. If you could, would you mind putting the citation in? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:31, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's from the actual script that I got off ebay. --Defiant 20:10, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
So, I've removed the citation request, since the note already says that the info is from the script. If you can think of a better way to cite script info, you're welcome to either add it or talk to me about it first. --Defiant 22:00, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Defiant is correct – stating that the information comes from the script is a sufficient citation. It is good practice, however, to link to scripts where possible, which is mainly the case for TNG, DS9 and the films.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:42, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Which I have been trying to do, and will continue to do. --Defiant 05:51, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I know. Just clarifying the situation for TrekFan. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:56, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I reckoned as much. It's good advice if you're adding script info yourself, TrekFan. :) --Defiant 06:00, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I always do add citations. I figured you had got it from a reference book that contained the script from the episode (like The Q Chronicles), in which case you could have cited it with that and the page number just to give it a source, but never mind. --| TrekFan Open a channel 08:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Input Edit

If you don't mind could you sound off on this discussion? Thanks. - Archduk3 17:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Cinefantastique informationEdit

I'd just like to thank you for the information from Cinefantastique you have added to several pages, most notably on Voyager episode pages. I read on your user page that you don't like DS9 (which I think is crazy, but each to his own) and was wondering if this was why there was little information from Cinefantastique on Deep Space Nine on Memory Alpha, or if the magazine just didn't focus on Deep Space Nine that much. -- DS9 Forever 13:12, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, other than to say that Cinefantastique appears to concentrate just as much on DS9 as Voyager and TNG, and that some of the folks who have an interest in that series don't seem to have access to the magazine. Ever since starting my concentrated effort to upgrade the Voyager episode articles (and even years before that), I've secretly been planning to do the same for all the spin-off series, which would ultimately include DS9. Voyager seemed like a good one to start off with as, unlike such series as TNG or DS9 (which both have their respective Companion books), Voyager's bg info seems rarer and/or more evenly spread over a number of sources (there therefore seemed less of a chance of risking copyright infringement by endeavoring to be definitive). I always try to keep my edits here relatively disassociated from personal feelings, however, so I have no qualms about concentrating on DS9 info eventually. --Defiant 13:37, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Recent talk page comments Edit

I've seen many talk page comments similar to those on Talk:Armus from you in the recent past. Typically, you start side-tracking a till-then civil and on-topic discussion by claiming that you have been treated unfairly, and how this wiki is about to collapse because all admins are evil. Please stop doing that, it's becoming terribly annoying. I am not out to get you, and if you read "attitudes" into innocent discussion comments, it perhaps says more about your mindset than about that of the guy you're talking to. -- Cid Highwind 17:19, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm baffled by what you mean about "claiming [I] have been treated unfairly, and how this wiki is about to collapse because all admins are evil." If you read my user page, it actually talks about "the wonderful, ongoing efforts of the admins and fellow contributors," so I think you might just be misreading some stuff or something like that. --Defiant 17:32, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'm 110% sure that I haven't once said you're "out to get [me]" (as I actually think quite the opposite since, as far as I can see, you keep your posts very on-topic, etc., for which you should be commended). I don't have any sort of ongoing problem with you, so if anyone here is reading "attitudes" into innocent discussion comments... it's not me. By the way, I also don't think this wiki is about to "collapse," since I know wikia's method: once at wikia, always at wikia (even if mirrors are created)! --Defiant 17:43, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
(Posting here to avoid being off-topic on the other page) I did not say you were acting in bad faith, or anything other than good faith; I was simply pointing out that I didn't agree with your comment.--31dot 18:09, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, 31dot. I didn't mean you; I was referring to Cid's comment above; I apparently think admins are "evil," etc. --Defiant 18:20, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Let's break down what you said there Defiant:
"Well, just forget my suggestion, then, as you seem dead-set against giving it any sort of approval. Even if you don't approve of the idea, you could still have acknowledged/welcomed the fact that I contributed by making a suggestion."
This is uncalled for and a complete over reaction. No one has even suggested that they were "dead-set" against your idea, and if "welcoming" and "acknowledging" an idea requires discussing it in detail even if that's not what the person was talking about, then I ask why anyone should pander to what you think? Cid acknowledged your idea by saying it wasn't what he had in mind. That doesn't mean it was a flat out dismissal, just that it's not what he was talking about. The idea is still there and can still be discussed, though I'm not sure why anyone should now that you've flown off the handle about it.
"The fact that you didn't is typical of the attitude adopted by MA's admins nowadays, if you ask me!"
This right here is the off topic "admins are evil" crap you like to spread around, and no one asked you. There is no way to read this as constructive at all, it's just you complaining for no reason and pushing a point that has long since been rejected by the community. You call this an "innocent discussion comment", but it's more of you raging and trolling because someone appeared to disagree with you, and that has to stop. - Archduk3 18:46, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the insult "crap", I don't believe there's any need to get so personal and insulting. I request mediation from an admin uninvolved in this. --Defiant 23:57, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
I feel really abused by the accusation of "trolling," especially since I've been a user here since 2004! I wasn't even taking this personally, not by one iota, but actually arguing for the rights of newbies who may also encounter the same sort of dismissive attitude. It seems very, very clear to me that there's little I can say or do that will make the truth be known, though – that every and any point I make is for a precise reason, entirely unrelated to "trolling." I'm still requesting admin mediation, as there's apparently so little I can do without the accusations starting! Evidently, the "assume good faith" guideline is repeatedly being breached. With these accusations of "trolling" and such, I'm feeling very threatened, and this is even after a few hours of me following the "taking some time out" guideline. --Defiant 00:29, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, my motives are being misunderstood time and time again, and in lieu of an explanation (rather than just inquire as to one), some users seem intent on just assuming an awful lot (the main faux pas being that, since no reasoning has been outlined to you, there mustn't be one, other than the nonsense of "trolling"). If you misunderstand my motives, I'd request that you please ask me what they are (just as people frequently do in reality). I certainly don't appreciate being personally attacked, as in Archduk's post. What I myself can't understand is why, even though I admitted (early in this discussion) that this was just a small nitpick (and there's only a single, short, non-personally-offensive post that seems at question), others have felt it warrants a force of three admins to respond! Doesn't that seem a little bit heavy-handed, especially since Archduk has breached the policies and guidelines multiple times without any comeback from any other admin (at least, as far as I can see)? --Defiant 08:56, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

It's funny to see you complaining about others assuming "an awful lot" about you, given the fact that this thread was started to ask you to stop assuming too much about others. As long as you won't even admit that this is the case (that you did read things into other peoples comments), I see no further sense in continuing this discussion - or acknowledging any future complaints from you, for that matter - because we'd just be running in the same circles over and over again. -- Cid Highwind 10:03, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "it's funny," I'm glad I could amuse you, Cid. :) I'm not sure what you mean about "stop assuming too much about others," as I have stated that I assumed your original post was "well-meant." Was that too much to assume? --Defiant 10:20, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
I'd also ask how you supposedly "know" I "read things into other people's comments" without any proof of that, and evidence (in fact) to the contrary! Don't you think I'd know what I've been assuming more so than someone else half the planet away?! I'll swear on everything sacred to me, including my own mother's life, that I didn't presume anything from your post other than it was well-intentioned. I'm really getting tired of all these accusations, though, so it may indeed be for the best if we try to cut down on contact with one another. But by that, please don't assume that I mean anything negative towards you (as is your habit). --Defiant 10:59, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
I am not part of a "force of three admins" who responded to you; I simply wanted to respond to your "good faith" comment; nor did I get together with anyone else to plot against you. I'm trying to stay out of this discussion as I don't really have anything to add.--31dot 11:17, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Well, your input has been much appreciated, 31dot. "Force" may have been too strong a word. That may be why others have been assuming that I'm taking things personally/negatively (for example, at no point did I mean to suggest a conspiratorial arrangement). I'll try to further reserve the impact of the words I use; that might help. --Defiant 11:23, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • On Talk:Armus, you accused me of being "dead-set against giving [your idea] any sort of approval", and that this "is typical of the attitude adopted by MA's admins nowadays" (and "typical" in that context can only mean "bad" rather than "good" - otherwise, why complain about it in the first place?). All I did was to state that your earlier assumption about us "thinking along similar lines" was wrong, because what I had in mind was something different. If you then, later, stated that my post was actually "well-meant" instead of "the [typical/bad] attitude adopted by MA's admins nowadays", this is just an example of you backtracking from an earlier claim, something which often happens in discussions including you.
  • On Talk:The Keeper, you basically called my a hypocrite that "just criticize[s] the previous creative efforts without making any sort of creative effort [himself]" and noted that "just criticiz[ing] anything else anyone writes" is my main objective - although, in fact, my only objective was to not start an edit war with someone who is just editing the article in question.
  • On the two recent forum threads about admins, you claimed that "there's a gross miscarriage of justice carried out by the admins at large", that "admins [are] trying to run this site on fear-mongering", that there is "disreputable behavior of the admins here in general", that "this place is essentially run like a dictatorship", that the only reason for opposing a specific admin-removal policy was that "those who have ceased [sic! most likely meant was 'seized'] power often want to retain it for themselves" (and not the fact that the suggested policy was full of problems)

So, yeah, these direct quotes from you are why I know (and not just "supposedly") that you misinterpret other people left and right - and those are just from four discussions of the last month that you participated in. You will probably just twist all of that into being "my" problem instead of "yours" again, and if you do, I'm not interested in playing that game any longer - but please note that I will move off-topic remarks on article talk pages to your user talk when I find them. -- Cid Highwind 12:25, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that clarification, Cid. I've been under the mistaken impression that this was on-topic with the discussion that started this, at Talk:Armus, not just a whole load of loosely-connected issues. Since this discussion is now over in my opinion and apparently also in your own (quote: "I see no further sense in continuing this discussion - or acknowledging any future complaints from you, for that matter - because we'd just be running in the same circles over and over again"), please accept that. --Defiant 12:44, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Matte painting Edit

Moved to Talk:Matte painting
Please have a look. ;) Tom 21:28, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Image licensesEdit

Please note that images from the Star Trek Magazines should be appropriately licensed. They should use {{image fairuse interior art}} as their license template, with an owner of Titan Magazines. Please also add them to the Category:Memory Alpha images (interior art) category too. This allows us a better idea of how much interior "art" we're using, etc.

In fact, any artwork or photograph that comes from a magazine or book should use that particular license and category. Thanks! -- sulfur 14:56, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure about that; seems like yet more newly introduced templates, but I will try to implement them. Thanks for your info. --Defiant 21:11, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Several topics Edit

Dear Defiant,

I'm applauding and rooting for your efforts on what you are doing with Matte painting. As somebody who has undertaken similar efforts on comparable issues, I know how much work is involved...That being said, might I ask what you intend with the page; Is it a concept page or is it a list page, or both? If it is the former or the last, might I suggest you beef out in time the practice and techniques of matte painting tailored to Star Trek, as I did with studio model (thank you by the way for the once-over)? Please, do not consider this as negative criticism, but as a heads-up, considering the flak you've received on the Gorkon nomination...While I'm at it, could I invite you to take a look at the CGI-page? I've taken some of your's and Cleanse's advise to heart and adjusted one of the listings as per your suggestions; I was wondering if it met with your approval...Kind regards--Sennim 16:30, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm currently quite busy, but I'll get back to you on those subjects. --Defiant 16:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
I'm yet to check out the CGI page (I still will), but I don't really like being considered as sort of the sole authority on the matte painting page. It's a community site, and it's a community page, so do with it as you wish... pretty much. The reason I haven't been focusing on "the practice and techniques of matte painting tailored to Star Trek" is I wouldn't be any good at it; I'd probably cause a whole load of copyright issues, copying too much text verbatim, since I don't really have a clue about that side of it. You're free to concentrate on that yourself, if you wish to. Having said that, just because it's what you decided to focus on in such articles as CGI and studio model doesn't mean that every effects page has to follow that formula. But go ahead with it if you wish. --Defiant 18:54, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from now on you are.. You'll be considered the foremost expert on matte paintings, purely because you have so much research put into it. Do not be put off by it, it is some sort of a being a "go-to-guy" for these kind of matters....And nmind you, it isn't a bad thing, by now you know more than anybody else--Sennim 19:42, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Haha! So, apparently hardly anyone knows anything about matte paintings. Really, the only things I know about them are that they're painted, you get two different kinds (the digital, computer-created type and the painted-with-a-paintbrush, traditional type) and they can be combined with live-action and/or miniatures in post-production (thereby varying from backdrops, which are used on the set). That's literally "it"... and that's how long the article would be, if I alone was to write it as a concept page. --Defiant 19:51, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
Your faith in my knowledge of matte paintings is flattering but, I highly suspect, ill-placed. --Defiant 19:56, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

No matter, as for now, my friend, as the saying goes, In the Land of the Blind, One-Eye is King, from now one you are the expert...--Sennim 19:59, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to have a proper read-through of the CGI article. It's alright, but could be better. The citations still need to be sorted out completely and it looks like the table of images in the first section could do with some additional organization. The page also includes a really long quote from Adam Lebowitz. I think that could be edited down; I don't really see enough reason to go into discussing the CGI for Toy Story and Babylon 5, when (after all) it's a Star Trek wiki. Also, the blurb I read about matte paintings made for some pretty interesting reading, definitely proving that you know more about that technique than this so-called "expert"! ;) --Defiant 22:25, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, as usual extremely appreciated, yet:

  • "table of images in the first section could do with some additional organization"- please elaborate
  • "long quote from Adam Lebowitz"- which one? Though if it is he one starting with "When a CGI company...", I,ve this to say; While it is true that he's very elaborate in wordings, he is also the one who actually worked on Star Trek. That cannot be said of either me or you, so as far I'm concerned it stands. Trying to diminish the quotes I've included makes you, well , I'll leave that up to your imagination...
  • "to go into discussing the CGI for Toy Story and Babylon 5'"- huh, where? Where the did I mention Toy Story

..--regards--Sennim 22:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

In regards to points two and three, I believe Defiant is referring to this section. This quote does indeed refer to both Toy Story and Babylon 5. I agree with Defiant that the quote is a bit long. Perhaps you could summarise Lebowitz's main points in your own words? In doing so, you could ensure the focus is on Star Trek, not other franchises.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

I know, but this is a opinion of a bonafide staffer making a point, who actually worked on the show whose opinions are not necessarily mine, but supersedes mine or whomever on this site not associated with the franchise nevertheless, Lebowotiz was making a point in his own words, which was not mine to interpret, therefore I've chosen to had it included uncensored, and btw woe unto them who w'll try to deny that. Rephrasing is the start of history falsification and I'll have no part of it....Sennim 00:16, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

What's the point in asking for input, then, if you're just going to argue against it without taking it onboard and start swearing?! Sorry, but I thought you were asking for my genuine opinion! Forget I said anything; the CGI article's absolutely perfect!! --Defiant 01:06, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
If I may intervene again:
Defiant - I believe Sennim meant no offence. I think Sennim was just being humorous with the swearing.
Sennim - this an encyclopedia, not a message board. As an encyclopedia, we report on what others have said. This necessarily involves summarising and synthesising different sources. Otherwise articles would be just huge blocks of text copied from different places. A rule of thumb for quotations is to keep them short and sweet. In this case, a link to Lebowitz's original post will be available if a reader wants to see what he said exactly.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:57, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that I've offended you, for that I sincerely has never been directed at you personally, though it might have been interpreted as such. Terms used, utilized in situations, I feel strongly about (to partisan extends), might have been otherwise interpreted, for which I'm deeply sorry. Know that I consider your person to be of the highest quality, regardless what..

@Cleanse, absolutely true, however in this particular case I truly believe he made a valid point, worthy to be read or quoted in its entirety, coming from the horses' mouth so to speak, which is why the quote is so uncommonly long. As a matter of fact, and this I FIRMLY believe in, it is not only what people say in interviews but also how they say it, containing at least some additional information, the last attribute always lost in translation when trying to reword it.--Sennim 02:23, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm unsure about whether to take you seriously or not, Sennim. Ultimately, that's immaterial; as Cleanse said, this is not a message board. I've taken the step of editing the info, since this is a community project and the community consensus seems to be to go ahead with the edit (I'll be happy to reconsider that decision if you can prove that the overall consensus, from those who have not expressed their views here, is to keep the info about Toy Story & B5). As for the "more organization" suggestion, the images currently don't seem to be arranged in either chronological or production order; I suggest that this be changed. --Defiant 03:06, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know the images were arranged in chronological order, but if I'm in error, please go ahead and correct..--Sennim 03:21, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I now see they're apparently in production order; my bad! The mix of shots from various series and movies was muddling me up. Another suggestion is to include the productions (the episode and film titles) in brackets. --Defiant 03:32, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Mmmhmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they mentioned (at least on my screen they are)?--Sennim 03:37, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they're there. I'm not suggesting they be added, but that they be enclosed in brackets; these things – "(" and ")". Thus, essentially formatting them, as they'd be in the style we usually use for citations. --Defiant 10:41, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood, done..--Sennim 11:46, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I think it looks slightly better, now. :) --Defiant 11:51, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way how does the the CGI-species list strikes you, I was acting on yours and Cleanse's suggestion made at the time, does it look right to you? On another note, are you going to cover digital matte painting as well in your article, I'm asking because I noticed the Detrian system, which I think is the first or one of the very first digital matte painting in TNG..--Sennim 12:16, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

The CGI species bit looks great to me, and I really like the format. It's just incomplete, but I guess that's apparent. I'm not responsible for adding any of the TNG info to the matte painting page and I won't be adding any such info to it (at least not in the foreseeable future). The article is a free-for-all, though (isn't every article?), so feel free to add the info yourself (or even make a note on the talk page for it to be added later, though inserting the note directly yourself would be preferable). --Defiant 14:50, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll take your endorsement as the go-ahead to tackle the other two sections in like-wise manner in due time...I take the matte painting notion under advisement as soon as I can remember where I read about it :)...Thanks for taking out the time to give he article one more once-over.--Sennim 16:03, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Defiant 16:49, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Strickler Edit

I was wondering if you have any information that might be pertinent here. - Archduk3 02:27, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the script for that installment. Are you sure the name ain't from credits? It says as much here. In about 12 hours, I'll have a search for it in some of the reference works and see what I can find out. --Defiant 02:44, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

The only mention of Strickler on the Netflix copy I can find is in the subtitles, which are riddled with errors, and it happens when the person speaking "Is there a problem ensign?" is off screen. To be honest, it doesn't even sound like the same actor, and the admiral is only one of three males in the room. Knowing how these things are shot, it could be anyone. - Archduk3 03:02, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've now checked multiple reference sources, and can't find a use of the name Strickler for this character other than in the Encyclopedia (though I'd be interested to find out if there's info about the character in the text commentary for Star Trek: First Contact). I don't see the point in dismissing info from Michael and Denise Okuda, as they were working on Star Trek: Voyager when "Non Sequitur" was made; they hardly would have just made up a name for the Encyclopedia! --Defiant 17:30, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
I've found some more evidence: the name of Jack Shearer's character in "Non Sequitur" is given as Strickler in both the Star Trek: Voyager Companion (p. 66) as well as in the unofficial reference book Beyond the Final Frontier (p. 284). With now at least two official sources (one of them a production source) citing the name "Strickler", must even more proof be gathered?! --Defiant 18:26, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
More official evidence can be found in the summary of "Non Sequitur", in the The Official Star Trek: Voyager Magazine issue 5, which also refers to the admiral as "Strickler". --Defiant 18:43, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, I can't find any references to the character being called Hayes. --Defiant 18:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Namimby Edit

Hi there Defiant. I was wondering whether you could help us out on Talk:Namimby. We need to check the spelling, and you have access to some sources that might be able to confirm which spelling is correct. Thanks in advance. :-)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:52, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the script for "In the Flesh", so what's one of the next most official sources? I'd say the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which I bet you already have access to yourself, right? I'm not sure what exclusive "sources" you were referring to. --Defiant 07:57, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of magazines like Cinefantastique and Star Trek Monthly - it might have come up. Also maybe the Star Trek: Voyager Companion. The Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't include an entry. If you can't help, no worries.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:19, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

I've researched some more into this situation. I haven't been able to find the name referenced in the first 50-or-so issues of Star Trek Magazine (I have both editions of Star Trek Magazine - The Archives), and The Official Star Trek: Voyager Magazine only goes up to the end of the fourth season, whereas Cinefantastique is not officially licensed (but I'll check it later, if no-one else gets to it first). I'd suggest Star Trek: Voyager Companion (a relatively widespread source, I imagine), if not Pathways (as has already been suggested in the discussion). I'll try to contribute more to this discussion, though I'm quite busy at the minute. --Defiant 08:25, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Issue resolved – Sennim got to the Star Trek: Voyager Companion before I had a chance to. --Defiant 15:54, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Nice Find Edit

Good work finding this! Being able to check a few more Voyager and Enterprise scripts is excellent. :-)

I only hope one day all the scripts will be readily available in some format.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:38, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problemo. :) All this year, I've been hoping that at least 1 more script would be added to that assortment, but (apparently) no such luck! Even though several scripts are currently available from there, that doesn't mean they'll be there forever – there was quite a few X-Files scripts on that site, but they've been removed. --Defiant 11:03, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry Edit

Dear Defiant,

This is just to satisfy my own curiosity, are you by any chance eloquent in the use of the English language in a professional manner? Your edits in this respect are to be recommended. While I'm honored you that you saw merit in my last suggestion for the Saavik article, your addition of "actually" was a stroke of sheer genius (being a counterpoint to her performance in the exercise), honestly, I'd never thought of that!!! I also would like to thank you for your endorsement as an administrator, but as I've stated, I simply just not feel ready yet for the task...--Sennim 17:35, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no probs and thanks for your comments. I have worked as a journalist on a very limited short-term basis (1 edition of a local youth magazine, including my writing, was published). Basically, I've just always been commended for grammar and spelling. I have a "higher" standard-grade qualification in English. Also, my grandmother's a published poet. --Defiant 17:48, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it shows in a very good manner, keep up the good work--Sennim 17:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As should you. :) --Defiant 17:55, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

That being said an afterthought: "At this early stage in her career, she often quoted Starfleet regulations, and applied them to her Kobayashi Maru scenario-test and was later surprised by the way Kirk occasionally bent those rules."....Like I said an afterthought...--Sennim 18:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing – I absolutely have no problems with you making suggestions (or anyone else, for that matter). That's all great, as far as I'm concerned. :) But I don't think, in this case, your phrasing really fits what happens in the film, as Saavik breaks/bends Starfleet regs to venture across the simulated Neutral Zone during the test, even though she does say she's "aware" of the regs. So, maybe something that clarifies that point may be more suitable. --Defiant 18:56, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you wish to continue making suggestions that pertain so centrally to the Saavik peer review, might I suggest you use the page for the PR comments to do so? It would seem more appropriate than on this user page. --Defiant 18:58, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification. It has now become clear that you are neither susceptible for either praise or commentary, but rather remain in your own universe of truth as you deem fit, as other users of this site have have already attested to (see :Cid's comment:)--Sennim 19:33, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to step in here before this potentially spirals out of control. Sennim, Defiant's writing style tends to very precise, which at times suggests an aloofness. That's not to say he is though, so please refrain for assuming so and commenting on it in the future. Let's also let sleeping dogs lie, so I suggest you both take a break from working on Saavik to see if these comments read differently under a different light. - Archduk3 19:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've cooled off a little, but I urge you, READ WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN A MIRROR, and then some, I, for one, know you mean well, but it comes across as being to adversary, maybe it's your style of writing, maybe it's something else, but as of now you're not making friends, and it should not be necessary...Sennim 20:03, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I meant absolutely no offense, whatsoever. My impression was that we were discussing the article, not anything personal. I'm still absolutely baffled and bewildered how someone could find offense in a comment that says the suggestion-making is "all great" (complete with a smiley face!) --Defiant 20:29, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
If someone could explain to me exactly how that is being offensive, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks for your input on this, Archduk. :) --Defiant 20:48, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

You know, what kinda irked me is, that I threw you a bone. I never sought acknowledgment for the quote...I gave it to you, to do whatever you saw fit to do with it...Questioning it like that was rather insulting, so excuse me for looking down upon people thinking like that. I should not have thought you being one of them...Sennim 20:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The "problem" seems to be that most users tend to use a informal conversational writing style (writing what would be said verbally otherwise) while you tend to use a more formal writing style (writing what would be said how it should be written). This tends to change the "tone" of what was said depending on what style the other person was expecting, hence the issue. Emoticons are suppose to help imply the intent, but they may also be misinterpreted. This is why it's suggested you read whatever you're written before posting it at least once, since if there is another way to "read" what's being "said", you might want to change it. - Archduk3 21:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly why, my dear Duke, as you have so correctly surmised in the first draft, that I'm not ready yet for the admin position...I'm still taking things too personally...Sennim 21:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Sennim, I meant no insult to you by questioning, I was just trying to improve the suggested phrasing (and the article in general). Experimentation with phrasing is a ceaseless thing that I personally do (virtually always with my own writing), so it's a completely impersonal thing. I am very grateful for the fantastic suggestions and contributions from other users, which I've tried to express. I'm also unsure about what you mean by seeking acknowledgement, though, as MA's policies and guidelines don't ask for acknowledgement to be given on the actual articles (in common with other wikis). Archduk, I think the problem, as you express it, seems to be people reading too much into what is said. Not being able to sense how what I communicate may be interpreted in alternative ways to what is meant is a part of my condition (it's actually because my "theory of mind" is not as developed as that of a neurotypical brain). I am therefore unable to change that and remove my difficulty. But I do read (and often double-read) everything I write, as well as most other things too. --Defiant 21:21, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I know, but whatever you use, it´s yours, I´ve nothing to with it--Sennim 21:50, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it technically (copyright-wise at least) belong to the community in general? --Defiant 21:55, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Ah Crap, Believe it or not , the original intent was to express admiration for original contributors, so admitted...(I´ll never make that mistake again) --Sennim 22:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Gorkon FA blurb Edit

Per the changes to AotW/FA, it might be a good time to write up the FA blurb for Gorkon, or at least start thinking about it. The blurb could be added to the top of the FA nomination section using the current the AotW nomination format (excepting the need for a week number). Changes to the FA nominations page when the AotW nominations are merged into it should make this clearer, but it might be a few hours before I get to that part. - Archduk3 18:49, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you've kind of "lost" me! I frankly haven't kept up-to-date with the progress of the changing-FAs-and-AotWs thing, as it seemed like a lot was still to be discussed and decided, regarding the various proposals. Could I ask what you mean by "the FA blurb"? If I'm understanding you right, that's consequently a new concept to me. --Defiant 19:03, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I did endorse it as a FA, so what's the problem. I know that nomination changes are in the air, but not for this one, so let's get this one through (it has the nominal amount of votes, for quite some time now). As for the other matters like AotW, that's as the saying goes something completely different--Sennim 19:06, November 25, 2011 (UTC)19:06, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite confused, finding it pretty hard (with superfluous "the"s, etc. in your writing) to understand what you mean, Archduk. From what I can see on the pertinent forum page, though, it doesn't seem like your idea of merging the nomination pages for FAs and AotWs has been supported; I, in fact, see no "support" votes for your idea whatsoever. If I'm looking in the wrong place or something, I'll be open to advice about where this has taken place. --Defiant 19:17, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] - The "FA blurb" would be what was the AotW blurb displayed on the main page. Since all FAs will now be displayed there, instead of just the 53 we use to have, all FAs will need blurbs. Going forward, part of the FA nomination will be writing that blurb, so they remain a community effort and all, and because one will be needed right away if the nomination gos through.

As for support for this, see Cid's suggestion for updating the main page, as well as mine. A week without opposing an idea tends to be enough to make changes. - Archduk3 19:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

And where's that written? All I see is a great deal of "humm"ing and "haw"ing about, "Oh, this might work..." "But this might also work!", etc., etc. --Defiant 19:25, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Merging the two pages makes merging the two processes implicit. That said, you don't have to do this right now, Gorkon will still be a FA at the end of the nomination period, it just won't be displayed on the main page until someone gets around to dealing with the blurb at a later date. I just figured you might want this page displayed, since if you're not doing it now it might be some time before it gets done, considering the backlog of old FA that needs to be gone though. - Archduk3 19:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

You've clearly just ignored my question. If you wish to make this a site-wide change, you should have proof that it's been accepted by the community. I'm still waiting for that evidence.... --Defiant 20:18, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything Defiant, you "clearly" don't understand that the policy has already been changed in accordance with the discussion (though Gorkon is still working under the previous policy). I don't have to provide you with anything other than the links I already have, as there is no "burden of proof" involved in being bold after a discussion has die out. Any "burden of proof", as it were, is on you, since you seem to be implying that there was opposition to these changes. - Archduk3 20:52, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Once again, a bending of the "assume good faith" guideline and someone else reading something into what I wrote. I don't mean to imply "opposition", as such, just not support either, as I can't find the discussion that provides any basis for the change. As for your pointing out that I didn't understand, thank you; you've now correctly understood what I was meaning when I said I was "quite confused." --Defiant 21:00, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assume bad faith at all Defiant, it just seemed that you were suggesting there was some opposition, since the standard practice is to assume that suggestions without opposition after a week or inactivity are accepted. I did assume you were aware of the last bit there there though. This is the really the only way to get anything done around here, since waiting for input where none is required, we can't force people to edit here, may take forever. - Archduk3

What I have been trying to tell you is that I can't find anywhere where this suggestion is even outlined. Please note that there's no links to talk pages anywhere in this thread (apart from, obviously, the user talk pages in the sigs). --Defiant 21:40, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

If the question is "where is the suggestion for FA blurbs outlined" the answer would be that it wasn't beyond what the merge makes implicit. The implicit parts are that since all FAs would/should now be "featured" on the main page, as further discussed in the Updating FAs section as well as the main page update suggestions, blurbs would be "required" for new FAs. The old AotW suggestion process, which is what we've been using to create those blurbs, is now merged with the FA nomination, so the blurbs we show have a chance to get community input without there being a gap where a FA can't be "featured". - Archduk3 22:24, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I've counted 5 votes, it PASSED even to MA standards, unless I've missed something, discussion on Gorkon closed.--Sennim 22:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The article may have passed, but there is no agreed upon blurb to place on the main page, so it won't be "featured" there, even though it's a "featured" article. The place to agree upon those blurbs is now the nominations page, or the reconfirmation page for old articles without one, but it will take two years for Gorkon to come up at the latter, so a blurb should be added to the former now so we can feature it sometime soon. - Archduk3 22:46, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sennim, I don't take well to you having deleted my last comment from this page (my own talk page), but I'll assume that was an accident, too. Archduk, I wrote this – In an attempt to clarify: I don't see anywhere that any suggestion of merging, re: FAs or AotW, has been suggested. Where does the "merge" idea come from?! --Defiant 22:51, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Please elaborate where I've eliminated comments, a these are somethings I'd never do--Sennim 23:21, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The last comment here is me suggesting that the AotW nominations be merged with the FA ones, for the reasons already stated (and as opposed to writing/nominating a blurb after the FA nomination). The suggestion to merge the AotW system proper with FA one is the entire section. - Archduk3 22:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I was more than a little confused to find all these severe changes to at least two processes, and don't think there has been a wide enough consensus to implement any of them. -- Cid Highwind 23:11, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I agree. Sennim, the deletion occurred here. --Defiant 23:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, my insertion, quoted as is, no deletion whatsoever--Sennim 23:45, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'd like for others to comment on this, as I clearly see a deletion in the link I posted and would be interested to determine whether other users can, too (it may be a glitch on my screen, but I doubt it). --Defiant 23:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

So far there have been at least three edit conflict "deletions" with this page that I know of today, including this one. Sennim/Defiant, have either of you noticed any "hovering" blue pop up boxes above the editing window that disappear, or a very small red circle in the upper right corner next to the "Notifications" link? The only other way to notice a edit conflict with the new skin is to see "The differences" below the editing box, which may not be visible by default on all screens depending on the size. - Archduk3 23:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't noticed either of those two things. Sorry for assuming it was an accidental deletion on your part, Sennim. It's typical of wikia to screw up like this! What I have been noticing, lately, is the bg changing/disappearing to a cartoon-ish gaming one (though that seems to have recently stopped too, thankfully). --Defiant 00:05, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
I have been seeing "the differences", though, as the edit box usually appears twice (the second time with the differences that another user has since made). If the pages are being saved even with a resultant edit conflict deletion, I think wikia should be informed, as that ain't good. --Defiant 00:10, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

There are known problems with the background, see the bottom half of James T. Kirk, and it's on the list of "things wikia has broken that I haven't had the time to figure out and fix yet". As far as I know the page isn't saved when you get an edit conflict, but then again categories aren't suppose to be randomly doubling either, so who knows? I'm pretty sure wikia doesn't, but I'll let them know there's another problem they can ignore in favor of changing the layout again... - Archduk3 00:34, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah, numbskulls that they are! --Defiant 01:00, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Wikia is aware of the doubling categories. It's a bug in the RTE that they haven't found yet. -- sulfur 02:11, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's good they're aware of it. Thanks for the info. :) --Defiant 02:23, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Xindi incident Edit

Since you've already commented on the reconfirmation, can you take the time to vote on it. At least two more support votes are needed on this one due to its history, though any vote would be welcome. - Archduk3 19:57, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


Please note that "CBS" is a link to a disambiguation page. When referring to the television studio or channel, please use "CBS Television Studios". -- sulfur 14:53, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the text should also state CBS Television Studios. --Defiant 15:03, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

It depends on context. That one might actually need to be "CBS Studios" to be honest. I'm not entirely certain. Just not that "CBS" isn't a "valid" link. -- sulfur 15:15, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Just that I don't see what's wrong with directing the user to a disambig, from where they can decide for themselves where they subsequently want to go. It's a difference of opinion, I guess. --Defiant 15:22, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

In wikis, by design, disambiguation pages should not have any incoming links, as you should direct them to the relevant article to begin with. That's why. -- sulfur 15:55, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

According to who and/or where? --Defiant 16:52, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
Memory Alpha:Disambiguation, but mostly common sense. In a sentence like "The standard definition tape masters that CBS currently has.", the link "CBS" should obviously point to the entity that actually is in possession of those tapes - and not to a list of entities that just happen to share their name with said entity. -- Cid Highwind 17:43, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Also (for example) WP:INTDABLINK -- which mirrors the Mediawiki documentation. -- sulfur 17:45, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Mostly, fair enough and thanks for those answers. However, the point about it being "common sense" doesn't hold water and doesn't have a leg to stand on, frankly, since no source whatsoever for that contention is cited (with that statement therefore being entirely subjective opinion)! I'd generally say that baseless arguments like that are usually made when the user making such an argument is too personally involved in a debate and it wouldn't surprise me if that were true in this case, though obviously questioning advice from an admin is not necessarily arguing against it. I'm happiest with the Memory Alpha:Disambiguation citation, owing to the repeated mantra of others – that "we are not Wikipedia". And for that reason, I'm happy to comply with this guideline. --Defiant 19:56, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines Edit

Don't make "drastic changes without sufficient approval", especially since those are your words. If you don't want people "following" you around and correcting things, don't do it incorrectly in the first place. You claim you should still be held to a higher standard, yet time and again balk when you are. Why don't you make up your mind on which one should it be, again? - Archduk3 23:42, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just taking a leaf out of your book. Also, harassment could very possibly lead to criminal charges in reality. What gives anyone the right to think they can do it online? --Defiant 23:52, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the next time you call me a name, however indirect, I guess I should just block you. Do try and keep that in mind, since I know instruction slips out of it so easily. You can consider this your only warning about threatening other users as well. - Archduk3 00:10, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where this started, but I'd like to see everyone take a break here. Defiant, leave the threats off this site. It is not harassment to advise you of how to do things correctly. Archduk, I'm not convinced it would be proper for you to block him yourself as you are quite personally involved here- but Defiant, I'm sure that other admins (i.e. me) could do so, if warranted. 31dot 00:18, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for intervening, 31dot, as I was just about to request admin mediation anyways (though got an "edit conflict" window). I'm really not sure of where the misunderstanding of any "threat" has come from; to the best of my knowledge, I have not called Archduk any names nor intended to threaten him whatsoever. It is often said that imitation is the best form of flattery, and this is what I meant to convey here (apologies if that was misunderstood, as it seems to have been). Any talk of "blocking" really seems a bit harsh, since I really don't see any grounds for this threat to have been made, but of course any admin is (and always has been) able to do it at any time. That's fine with me, as I haven't ever had any intention of defying the policies and guidelines to that extent. I have huge respect for most of the edits you make, Archduk, and wouldn't want you to get the mistaken impression that I think anything wrong of you. As for the guideline I tried to insert, I have plenty of reasons for doing so, over the years, but am prepared to wait; maybe, after a while, it might not be so misconstrued as seeming so personal. --Defiant 00:30, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Now that I've seen where this started, I will say, Defiant, that it is difficult to see what you wanted to add to that page as anything other than personal. I accept that maybe you don't see it that way; but what you think is not enough on a community site like this. If you would like to see a policy to address an alleged wrong (I am not saying you are right or you are wrong here; I reserve judgment) then you should discuss it with the community.
Stating what you did about criminal charges and "What gives anyone the right to think they can do it online" could certainly be interpreted as a threat. I can't read your mind, and don't know if that's what you meant or not, but I also took a threat away from what you said to Archduk. There is little reason to compare this situation to reality unless you seek punishment of Archduk for some alleged wrong(which is threatening).
Everyone knows what they need to do here. So let's do it, and move on. 31dot 00:41, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
I'll also add, Defiant, that inserting such a policy unilaterally, and clearly in response to what you feel is a wrong against you, could be considered disrupting the site to make a point. I would advise you not to do so. 31dot 00:45, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
I find it really disturbing that some users can have thoughts like that. It seems kind of like a conspiracy theory, and that I'm somehow out to get you! I've tried my utmost to cooperate and find the lack of support very worrying. --Defiant 00:50, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to conspire to disrupt the site in order to disrupt the site. I don't think anyone is "out to get" me, nor do I wish to support any particular party in this matter; I call them as I see them. If you find that disturbing, there's not much I can do about it, nor do I particularly wish to. 31dot 01:23, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Calling them as I see them, it seems pretty clear you're actively supporting Archduk's edits here, such as echoing the threat of a block. Is it not pretty obvious that I would know such a thing existed, having been an admin for so many years myself?! Furthermore, these accusations of disrupting MA to prove a point fall foul of the assume good faith guideline, "seems [...] like" is not the same as saying "is" (in the context of my statement that what you commented "seems kind of like a conspiracy theory"), and what happens online is very commonly likened to reality (hence, there are TV adverts against Internet piracy that show similar behavior happening in the real world).
It makes very little sense that I would so strongly support MA to the extent that I would spend years making many contributions, then try to disrupt the site just to make a point, even running the risk of a block. If I meant anything personal attacking at all, I probably would have addressed it directly to the person I meant it to be for (i.e. saying "what gives you the right to think you can do it online," rather than the way I did phrase it). Otherwise, where did the name-calling bit come in?! In summation, I have tried my best to be cooperative and have even attempted to personally contact Archduk outside of MA, in an effort to sort out the friction between us, though he's been entirely non-responsive (although that may be a problem with the emailing function or another technicality). I would most like to get on with everyone on this site; that's still very much my goal, of course, as I have nothing against anyone here. --Defiant 02:07, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
"Assume good faith" is not a trump card that can be used to deflect any and all criticism of actions here. And if you think that I am supporting Archduk for the sake of doing so, and not simply because I arrived at that conclusion myself, there's not much I can say to change your mind. 31dot 02:23, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not; you haven't provided much in the way of evidence as to why you're opting to ignore the "assume good faith" guideline, regarding your judgment of myself. I don't really know what you mean by the first sentence of that statement, but I just think that following the guideline might help you to realize what's actually going on here. --Defiant 02:38, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Do you know what this seems to really be about? Your prejudices against me, guys; if I had been any other user who made that addition to the policies and guidelines, there's very little likelihood I would have had to face the nonsense I've been presented with here (i.e. threatened with a block, the accusation that it's all somehow personally motivated on my part, etc.) I'm sorry I didn't consider how you might draw personal connotations from the "Don't try to be know-it-all" guideline, Archduk, but they really weren't intended. As an aside, I know it's obviously not harassment to be advised of how to do things correctly, but the same user targeting you time and time again, wrongfully using the edit summary to post patronizing messages to you, is. I also resent the statement, "What you think is not enough on a community site like this." This was clearly not true when Archduk implemented the FA renomination policy without community backing. The response that it's not enough in this case appears to be double-standards typical of the unfairness leveled at me. I understand it's been taken in an overly personal way, which I honestly did not wish to happen, so as I said, I think it either best to wait until it's viewed without the personal interpretation or added by another user. --Defiant 10:36, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was that you seem to bring up "assume good faith" whenever criticism is leveled against you, which is not the guideline's purpose. You can continue to say I'm "ignoring" it, but I know that's not true. Maybe your motives were pure, I don't know really, but your addition was clearly reactionary to a perceived wrong you experienced. And when I said "What you think is not enough", it certainly isn't when you tailor and insert a policy towards alleged wrongful behavior that you are experiencing. FA renoms are apples and oranges compared to this; they were a reaction to a perceived flaw in the site, and input was solicited and not greatly received(which is tacit acceptance). You did not solicit any input in your addition to the policy page you edited. If you had, we wouldn't be here now.
I am finished going back and forth here, and I'm ready to move on. If you really want to go down the road of proposing your policy addition, then it should be discussed on the policy talk page. 31dot 11:35, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I will do (in due course), and thanks for the advice. It's a policy addition I have had in mind for quite a few years, so I seem to have just got my timing a bit wrong (apologies for the unintended implications). The reasoning why I commonly bring up the assume good faith guideline is that, if admins were consistently keeping it in mind, it's doubtful we would be having this sort of problem, as I am always well-intentioned (regardless of the impressions you and/or others apparently perceive). I also get a bit tired of the back-and-forth, having to explain myself at nearly every juncture. Thanks for your assistance. :) --Defiant 12:18, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm posting this email here, after it took a trip though my spam folder, because I will not engage in off site "policy" discussions that are "negative" in nature, and I feel this one is. Also, I'm making this public because there is no reason that it shouldn't be, and I think anyone interested should be able to see it.

Hi, Archduk3. In accordance with Memory Alpha's policies and guidelines, I've decided to move our debate to email. I don't know what's wrong with you, but I'd like this general negativity towards me to please stop. You clearly misunderstood why I lost my admin status, an unprecedented and therefore illegal move on the part of Cid Highwind (with no grounds for it, at all, being available in the policies and guidelines). I made a sarcastic joke to an unregistered user that, since he or she was suggesting my admin status be removed, I would be happy for that to happen. I know you Americans have a difficult time with irony (something I remembered only after-the-fact), but this was meant completely as sarcasm, as there are no reasons for my admin status to have been removed; I'm well acquainted with the policies and guidelines, have no problems with any of the other regular users on MA, and I'm a long-standing regular editor. Hopefully, you and I can work past our difficulties, as you seem to have quite a few unrelated personal problems on MA generally, and I don't wish to be one of them. I like to think of you as a friend and I certainly agree with most of the posts you make (being particularly impressed by how you've developed the FA reconfirmation aspect of the wiki).

First, Defiant is wrong that his status removal was "illegal" and "unprecedented". MA has no "laws", so "legality" doesn't factor in at all. We do have polices, and then guidelines, but there isn't any policy or guideline, though there is a draft one, on removing admin powers. Defiant is either clearly unaware or simply not going to mention that he is hardly the first admin to have his powers removed when requested. In fact, if you look at how the last request before his was handled, you will see that roughly two hours after the request was made, it was done, so clearly the only recent precedent on the matter was followed.

Second, since exactly zero of the bureaucrats here are American, I don't know why that was brought up again. I would also think that the clear demonstration that the non-American between the two of us is the one that has "a difficult time" with sarcasm or irony would have been enough to dissuaded you from that idea. Clearly nothing was learned the last time this was brought up, as in just before this email was sent, and I'll just have to take all your posts about the matter as "jokes", so I'm not going to spend anymore time on it, since the problem here is not "us", but "you".

Third, Defiant is a personal problem, not just for me but for many users, mainly because we have to personally take the time to respond to this kind of stuff. If you think calling for my head for days without first "assuming good faith" is going to be forgotten either, think again. You've personally attacked me on more than one occasion, so I'm not going to make an ass out of either of us by doing something you've proven time and time again shouldn't be done, assuming your edits should be taken in good faith when the intent is so clearly not. I can also name more than one user who you have clashed with rather vehemently in the past as well, so is "regular" just there to remove most of them? You are not the victim here, and even if you were, you would also be the "victimizer".

Fourth, even if you were still an admin, I think there is more than enough reason to call for your removal. You either can't or won't follow the policies and guidelines you claim to know, even when their directly on the page, and your outright refusal to acknowledge consensuses you disagree with is not something any admin here should do. I think the "community" has made some bad calls on a number of things, sometimes with no mitigation of points and based purely on a "vote" as small as two to one, but I at least acknowledge they happened. I may also have had issues with people here, but it took years to get to that point with them, and I don't swing back and forth on those matters to the extent that you do Defiant. All of that is enough in my mind to question your ability to preform the actions expected from an admin. You have said yourself that your powers went to your head, and I agree with you, which also further leads me to think that you decided one day after the fact that relinquishing your powers was a bad idea on your part, not that it was a joke from the moment you posted the request.

Fifth, who is this "unregistered user" you're talking about? There wasn't any unregistered user in that discussion, and if you're talking about who I think you're talking about, then you're just providing another reason that you shouldn't be an admin.

You can rest assured that I don't make threats about blocks either, I'm simply informing you what will happen if you continue to act in a certain manner. A mistake was made before to let these "little" things slide with users who frequently needed an admin to step in, and that mistake won't be repeated. You can take that any way you like, but if you continue to make posts that other users agree can be seen as an attack, you will have to be dealt with as such. You can also be assured that I'll oppose any addition to a policy or guideline that resembles the one you added, since it undermines the very idea behind wikis, that while perfection is not required at first, instruction should be expected, and heeded, so as to build a pool of users who know how to do things correctly. While I appreciate the effort "to sort out the friction between us", the friction is you refusing to let this drop and follow the guidelines and policies. If you could do that, there wouldn't be a need for any of this. - Archduk3 03:18, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; Defiant, do not conduct MA business off-site; it is not a "personal debate", it is a debate about you, policies, and your former admin status. I would also suggest that the anti-American generalizations stop- I understand irony just fine, thank you. As suggested to you before, either don't use it or make it clear that's what you're doing. 31dot 09:42, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
In my defense, that's actually quite an old email, by now; it was sent before my other reference to having heard that Americans have difficulty with sarcasm. I have no intention of bringing it up again. If a debate about me isn't "personal", I'm not sure what is! But I'll take your advice by not following that exact piece of the policies and guidelines. I have personally always tried to follow the policies and guidelines to the best of my ability, though I'm obviously not perfect (no-one Human is), and perfection apparently isn't required either. 31dot, I feel confident you will address the issue of Archduk having used the edit summary to send a message to me.... --Defiant 09:53, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, it is not a debate about you, it is about how you conduct yourself here. I'm not entirely sure which message in an edit summary you are referring to; but that is not what we are talking about here. 31dot 10:31, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have no desire to continue something as unconstructive as this one-sided argument. I'd much rather focus on various articles, instead; I thought that was "the very idea behind wikis." By the way, the patronizing edit summary that I refer to can be viewed here. --Defiant 11:21, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

TNG-R making TNG non-canon?Edit

Please see Forum:TNG-R making TNG "non-canon"?. -- sulfur (talk) 13:41, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Cold Front item Edit

Since you seem to have access to a number of background information sources, I was wondering if you could add anything to this discussion. Thanks. - Archduk3 17:24, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

The unfortunate truth is that not many bg info sources were created for ENT. I'll investigate later, though. --Defiant (talk) 23:40, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Alice Eve Edit

Since you contributed a lot to Carol Marcus, I'd thought I'd alert you to a couple of interviews at SFX and with Alice Eve you could use once we're allowed to create Carol Marcus (AR). --Alientraveller (talk) 22:06, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the heads-up! :) --Defiant (talk) 12:14, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

In-universe links Edit

Hey. I've just reverted your last edit on the "Romulan" article. I can see your wish to link to these states but in the realworld section of the article Memory Alpha is not linking to in-universe pages when the realworld pages are meant. Tom (talk) 22:36, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Can you please show me in the policies and guidelines exactly where it says that? It does seem a lot like "same difference", re: linking to in-universe pages/real-world pages, as even the in-universe pages written about major issues in reality will/should have quite large bg info sections. So, if such a guideline does even exist, it should most likely be corrected or removed. --Defiant (talk) 23:03, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
ThomasHL is correct in this. We have made a practice of not linking to in-universe "real world" places (ie countries, states, cities) in real world articles or real world sections of in-universe articles. This practice has been in place for over four years, and when links are found from real world articles/segments to these pages, they should be removed. -- sulfur (talk) 23:16, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
Fine. If it's already community approved, I also have no issue with accepting it. It should at least be written up, though. --Defiant (talk) 23:27, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
We have a lot of "best practices" that are not all written in a central place. When we have time, we'll get that all done. Maybe while we're on "lockdown". Haha. :) -- sulfur (talk) 23:29, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
I actually disagree that this has even been accepted by the community at large, however. It's really not in common usage; there are many bg info sections that link to dedication pages, for instance. --Defiant (talk) 08:11, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we go about removing the multitude of links to in-universe pages that are in bg info sections?! That would seem to be quite an undertaking. --Defiant (talk) 08:14, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
Yes. We started with "real world" articles, as they're easier to find, and have been slowly doing BG sections, when we come across them. There's been no out-and-out effort to do all of them in one big job because, as you noted, that's a huge undertaking. As such, it's been approached in a piecemeal fashion. -- sulfur (talk) 10:45, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanations. :) --Defiant (talk) 11:17, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
I'd still question the reasoning for making these portions of the web less accessible. There are especially some Internet browsers (such as some phones, for example) on which the Web is quite hard to view, displaying only one screen at a time, with no search bar. If we include the links, I think it'd be much easier for those sorts of devices than if we didn't! --Defiant (talk) 12:47, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
Going by that logic, we should link to articles/pages every time they show up in the text too? We're concentrating on non-mobile browsers, as they make up over 90% of our accesses. If we want to begin taking such devices (and poorly designed browsers) into account, then there will have to be a revisit on many things. -- sulfur (talk) 14:08, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
I understand that, but would it not be doable for us to create a mobile-specific version of the site that does link to other pages whenever they're mentioned, then? Couldn't a bot or multiple bots create and/or upkeep such a version of this wiki? --Defiant (talk) 14:27, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
I still strongly believe we can be of most use to the widest variety of people (and isn't that the point?!) if we do permit in-universe linking even in bg info sections. There are (presumably, at least) reasons why we don't link every single word and phrase, as that would probably be distracting for people using computer browsers. However, the policies and guidelines would seem to favour doing our best to build the web, which is essentially the method I've proposed. --Defiant (talk) 19:47, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
I still also question if this has indeed been accepted by the community at large. In fact, if you'd like to point me in the direction of anywhere at all that this has even been discussed, I'm all ears. Two users agreeing to use it a community consensus makes does not! --Defiant (talk) 19:57, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Requested imageEdit

I have the August 2010 requested photo (actually a screen still) of the turbolift aboard the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 before Miles and Julian beam into it from Trials and Tribble-ations. I might be willing to share it with you and let you use it on here if I could send it to you via e-mail. I'd prefer to remain anonymous and help out, from now (mainly on TOS info -- I want to help a little more in beefing up TOS' characters Chekov's page and also Lieutenant Vinci's page, but not much more than that, because I notice some of the other contributors, even those that don't remain anonymous apparently don't really have as good a background or perhaps remember the TOS stuff as well.) I'd prefer if we could start this exchange -- I have that photo, plus a couple of others -- including two more from Trials and Tribble-ations -- I'd like to have on Uhura's page -- it's of Uhura's initial reaction to the tribbles with Odo in the background and one with the character of Hadley for his page with him having tribbles along the helm control, Kirk getting upset about it and Dax behind them both walking down the stairs on the bridge of USS Enterprise NCC-1701. Plus I have some more photos (screen stills) for Uhura, Chekov, Hadley, Lt. Brent and Lt. Vinci's page from other TOS episodes that I'd like to see put on those pages, but again I would like to remain an anonymous contributor. I'm just not thrilled about having too many people or websites e-mailing me all the time. Again, if you'd like to work something out about this and the photos that I have feel free to let me know. 14:47, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Please note that:
a) the website will not email you unless you ask for it,
b) you can limit who can email you through the site (ie, you can choose to have nobody email you),
c) you're actually more anonymous as "User123" than as your IP address.
Just as an aside. -- sulfur (talk) 16:19, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
To the anon contributor, I suggest you post the screen stills on this site yourself; go ahead and edit boldly. No-one will email you unless you wish it. --Defiant (talk) 01:08, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
I did upload the image you have been requesting since August 2010 of the turbolift on board the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) from DS9's Trials and Tribble-ations before Miles and Bashir beam over into it under my temporary pseud. name -- I'm not going to keep this name for very long. I do have to acknowledge still where I got it from -- it's a Greenshot still I got from an on-line video but not credited to CBS. But it's here on Memory Alpha for you to use if you would like. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spocksbeardandears (talk • contribs).

Neville Page's Klingons Edit

Heya Defiant, I'm not sure if you knew but Neville Page uploaded a gallery of his Klingon concept art. There's a lot and they're all beautifully-ugly so have fun picking one (or maybe just a few) for the article. I dig his one stab at keratin hair. --Alientraveller (talk) 22:30, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

That's a great gallery! Thanks a lot for letting me know about it :) --Defiant (talk) 00:19, August 26, 2013 (UTC) linksEdit

When linking to, please use the {{}} or {{}} templates in their place. This allows us to keep track of links to that site. We're doing the same thing with as many "regularly" linked sources on MA as possible. -- sulfur (talk) 13:08, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and always use the link method, if I can. --Defiant (talk) 15:59, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. Just wanted to make sure as it looks like you missed one on the Khan BG stuff you added. -- sulfur (talk) 16:38, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't me who actually added that info. Nevertheless, I was going to correct the mark-up, but chose not to, as editing this site is currently very difficult for me, since losing internet connection on my pc (I'm now having to use a mobile device, and the lack of a keyboard is extremely difficult) --Defiant (talk) 16:46, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Reconfirmations Edit

While your stated preference is not to take part in policy discussions, I figured you may have some vested interest in the outcome of this discussion on the reconfirmation process. - Archduk3 17:16, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Psst Edit

It's late and I'm busy tomorrow so I'd thought I'd leave you with this resource. Do what you will. :D --Alientraveller (talk) 23:51, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Greatly insightful; thanks very much. :) --Defiant (talk) 02:20, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek maps project Edit

Hi Defiant. I'm Brandon, Senior Community Manager at Wikia. We're working on a new Star Trek project as part of the Wikia Fan Studio. To give a bit of context, Fan Studio is a program where fans on Wikia can be connected with brands from the entertainment and video gaming industries. Fans get to interact with brands and share opinions that could impact final products and releases, or whatever it may be that a partner brand is working on. This project doesn't have a partner brand involved, but it will let you be part of Fan Studio and other future projects.

This Star Trek project is based around Wikia Maps, and participants will be mapping different parts of the Star Trek universe. Participants will get to help decide what we should map as well. It could be the layout of the Enterprise, or Voyager's journey through the Delta Quadrant, or even more light-hearted subjects like Captain Kirk's romantic liaisons throughout the galaxy. Whatever the participants end up deciding. The maps that the project participants create will live on Trek Initiative, plus any other community that wants to can embed them.

As an active Memory Alpha contributor, we think you'd be great for this project. Would you like to join? Let me know on my talk page. Thanks! - Brandon Rhea@fandom(talk) 07:23, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Remastered tagEdit

Just FYI, the way remastered images are done was recently changed. For TOS or TNG, just use "TOS-R" or "TNG-R" as the episode citation and the "remastered image" tag is no longer needed. -- sulfur (talk) 16:13, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. :) --Defiant (talk) 16:16, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Featured article nominations Edit

The FA nomination process is currently being discussed here. Just a FYI in case you missed it in the recent changes. - Archduk3 06:02, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Some new imagesEdit

Curious, where is this image actually from? Was it on the DVDs, or is it from elsewhere? -- sulfur (talk) 19:58, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sulfur. I hope you're doing well. :) The image is from my personal collection. Is it permissible on this site? --Defiant (talk) 20:36, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

It is allowed -- what's the original source though? You buy a set of storyboards, or? We'll just have to figure out what the license details should be/etc. -- sulfur (talk) 01:46, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

On eBay, I basically bought one sheet of paper on which are storyboards from "Beyond the Farthest Star". There are nine boxes, arranged by three rows each containing three boxes. Only the middle row of boxes (when the sheet of paper is held horizontally) contains illustrations, though, which is the row of images I've uploaded. --Defiant (talk) 06:00, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
The delivery also came with a "Certificate of Authenticity" as being a genuine production-used storyboard. The certificate's from the Movie Prop Warehouse. --Defiant (talk) 06:04, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Dakala snakes Edit

Just wondering, but the change from centipede to snake, is that per the partial script you have? I'm asking because, well, it really doesn't look like a snake and so if snake is the correct term from the script that should probably be noted somewhere (even if just by an fyi on the talk page), so that if anyone is confused about it in the future it's clear where snake came from. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:03, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for getting in touch. Firstly, yes, it's from the script I have, which is only missing 1 page (right before the shot of the snake, when the landing party puts on their nightvision eyepieces). Secondly, I do think it looks more like a snake than a centipede. Would you like me to upload the script page which refers to the creature as an "alien snake", so you can see for yourself? --Defiant (talk) 02:13, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

As cool as it would be to have a sneak peak at your awesome and evergrowing (seriously, I've put your userpage on my watchlist recently because it is just so cool to see new resources emerge from the dark) collection of scripts, I think your word is more then enough. My concern was rather that if five years from now someone took to the talk page to ask if it was a good thing to call that a snake and you weren't really around anymore (sorry to be morbid, but people's lives change and these things happen), then that would be a big question mark because apparently someone at some point felt reason to call it a snake, but we couldn't evaluate the reason anymore. Now that its clear that it was called a snake in the script, that settles that :) Keep up the good work in any case!
I don't know, maybe I'm just neurotic to wonder about such hypotheticals, but then again, I've been in too much situations were things would have been so much easier if we knew the exact logic or source behind the adding of a bit of information, but it was just lost in time... -- Capricorn (talk) 04:42, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And you're right; things change, but often for the better as well as the worse. --Defiant (talk) 05:02, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Keethara Edit

In case you haven't seen it, this talk page issue is something you and your script collection may be of help with. The encyclopedia does say Keethara tbh, but I guess its always safer to check with the script... -- Capricorn (talk) 07:35, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to that discussion. :) --Defiant (talk) 08:54, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Source? Edit

Hey, what's your source that Carson Horvath worked on-screen on Star Trek Into Darkness? Could you please add it to the article? Thank you. Tom (talk) 15:06, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. I don't really have time to add it right now. But basically, she's mentioned in the "enhanced commentary" from Star Trek Into Darkness (digital) & Star Trek: The Compendium special features. Her character is sitting to the left of Spock and Kirk on the shuttlecraft journey to the Enterprise, (I think) across an isle. --Defiant (talk) 15:46, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply. That's a problem. In Into Darkness is just one shuttle scene with Spock. To his left is the wall to his right Carol Marcus. There are only two more women in this scene. One is definitly not Horvath, the other one was identified as Jaycie Dotin, who herself also confirmed and identified this is her via her twitter account. So where could Horvath be? I've tried to contact her to verify this commentary....we'll see if I'll get a response. Tom (talk) 17:34, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

In the commentary, Editor Mary Jo Markey identifies her as Carson Horvath, rather than Jaycie Dotin. --Defiant (talk) 18:22, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Source, Part II Edit

Could you please add a copyright tag and the source to your recently uploaded file? Otherwise it will be removed from the article and deleted in 5-7 days. This is the file in question. Thanks. Tom (talk) 11:29, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for forgetting that image. Could you help me add the copyright info? I took the picture from here: [4]. --Defiant (talk) 12:54, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
If you're not sure on copyright stuff from an image, just put up a description, and the source of the image itself. We can figure things out from there if need be. -- sulfur (talk) 13:24, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
Another thought as regards identifying actors/etc from commentaries. We already indicate when we find out names/etc from call sheets. We should also mention the source of finding out that these people are making appearances in films and TV... including the commentaries (whether the special iTunes ones or otherwise). -- sulfur (talk) 13:34, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, even if it "just" Twitter. --Defiant (talk) 14:25, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

Page moves Edit

Hi. When moving articles following the script spelling please make sure that you're also fixing all incoming links. Thanks. Tom (talk) 10:56, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to make more effort to do that in future. --Defiant (talk) 11:17, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Tom (talk) 11:19, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

BG InfoEdit

Just FYI, actor credit should come first in these, as it's the most important bit of information in terms of credit/etc. That should be followed by BG information about the character, costume, whatever. -- sulfur (talk) 14:50, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sulfur. Coincidentally, I was just about to ask you about this. Can you please explain to me where you get that policy from? I don't recall reading that anywhere, and I think it does seem like the "instruction creep" thing we're meant to be avoiding. Is there any written precedent for the policy? --Defiant (talk) 14:57, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
Personally, it makes much more sense to me to arrange things in an orderly fashion, rather than completely departing from all sorts of rational system. Arranging info in a sensible order is what I've been doing for many years now, so I'm unsure why I'm now suddenly being asked to stop. Makes very little sense to me. It also doesn't show the MA community in a very good light, to insist on departing from a rational system which has been shown to work well. --Defiant (talk) 15:03, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
To which rational system are you referring? I may be confused here... I think rather than a hard and fast rule, it's more of an established convention. We probably have more than enough specific rules here, so its not something that's ever been codified anywhere in a rule or policy or guideline. Here's another one that I try to adhere to and edit when I can: on the production events pages, if more than one event occurred on the same day, and one of those events was a death of someone associated with production, I move that one to the top of the list of events for that date. It's more a sign of respect thing, that someone's passing is more important or more of note that, say the release of a new issue of a comic or a new novel. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:08, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, "instruction creep" is where you keep adding more and more formal rules to cover every potential situation, so the "rulebook" becomes overcomplicated - see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. To me, this is an instance where Use common sense applies - one of the first things someone will be wanting to find out about a character is who played them. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:12, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
So, instead of going the "instruction creep" route, what MA actually does is make up a whole bunch of rules, but just not write them down, and call them "established convention"s instead? Then, when someone gets them wrong, they're told they haven't followed common sense, even if the established convention itself is contrary to common sense? Sorry, guys, but that really doesn't seem right to me, and breaches something which is written down in the policies and guidelines: to allow users their individual writing style. --Defiant (talk) 05:38, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
The "rational system" I was referring to is the order in which things actually happened, not some random, overly sentimental and non-encyclopedic method, such as the ones you demand, sneakily referring to them as "established convention"s. --Defiant (talk) 05:48, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Defiant! I'm also a HUGE fan of Star Trek. My favorite is Voyager; what's yours? Best, Kat

blood of teracaq Edit

Ok, let's talk this out, why would blood of teracaq be an unnecessary link? -- Capricorn (talk) 23:10, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Because there wouldn't be enough information to warrant its own page, imo; it's basically just another name for blood soup, so any info that needs to be written about blood of teracaq can be written there, as it is already, amounting to the grand total of a single sentence! --Defiant (talk) 23:27, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

There's as much to say about blood teracaq as about any offhand mention, and these unreferenced material things are often a matter of one reference being replaced by another. That's not enough to say it should not have an article (or in this case, a link to a future article) -- Capricorn (talk) 18:26, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Script Edit

Hey there. Great information regarding Sousa/Sariel Rager. Do you have by chance the script for ENT: "Chosen Realm"? I've spent two days and nights working on the episode article and cleaning up several problems. Maybe the script is featuring a line for the crewmember played by Kim Fitzgerald? I'll bet there are other useful information for this episode, too. Tom (talk) 17:56, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't (yet) have the script for that episode; if it's not listed on my user page, I don't have it. --Defiant (talk) 19:30, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Can now add some "Chosen Realm" script info. --Defiant (talk) 23:20, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pagesEdit

Just a heads up note, but careful on links that go to disambiguation pages, such as "mind meld" on the Rajiin article you recently edited. -- sulfur (talk) 17:09, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's strange how the page I was looking for is at Vulcan mind meld, whereas the article about Vulcan neuro-pressure is at neuro-pressure, though. --Defiant (talk) 17:25, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
Surely we should use one method or the other(?) --Defiant (talk) 17:26, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

There isn't anything else about "neuro-pressure", but there are a couple of other "mind meld" type things. Now, might it be prudent (somewhere down the road) to possibly revisit things and move "Vulcan mind meld" to "mind meld" and move the disambiguation page? Certainly. Am I willing to do it right now with 500+ references? Nope. Will I consider it when I've got the bot up and running again? Definitely. :) -- sulfur (talk) 17:50, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

No probs. :) --Defiant (talk) 17:52, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

"Damage" reference to horror filmEdit

Is the reference only in the chakoteya transcript? or the script? --LauraCC (talk) 20:03, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. --Defiant (talk) 23:46, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

On the page "Horror film", it says additional references and lists "Damage". I know the Chakoteya transcript describes a section of it this way: "Her journey through the corridors however, has a sound and vision distorted, horror film quality to it". Is that where the person got their reference from? --LauraCC (talk) 20:44, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know because, like yourself, I currently don't have the script for "Damage". --Defiant (talk) 20:50, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Eska goggles Edit

Here is something I wanted to ask you a few months ago already, but forgot about. You created a page called Eska imaging goggles, but in a note you stated that the script called them ""Eska viewing goggles" instead. Why the different name? -- Capricorn (talk) 07:03, January 16, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Thank you for this article. A really good idea. Tom (talk) 17:44, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Now just to start linking it from the various episodes. I put one into "The Corbomite Maneuver" as an example that might work... -- sulfur (talk) 17:47, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
No probs. The article basically came about because I've occasionally found some really obscured-named scripts on the internet, which I've found use a working title. Hopefully, this will make it easier for me (and possibly other script-seeking Trekkies?) to identify them. Btw, that's a good idea, sulfur. :) --Defiant (talk) 18:06, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

"Regeneration" script Edit

Hey. Does the script of "Regeneration" say something specific about the device aboard the transport Arctic One where the charges were placed near the end of the episode? As I understand it from the main text this is the EPS conduit? Thanks in advance. Tom (talk) 20:01, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

The script describes it by stating, "We see a distinctive-looking collumn [sic] of Starfleet circuits and conduits that have been slightly Borgified... it's the EPS MANIFOLD." From then on, it's simply called a "manifold". -- Defiant (talk) 20:58, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Tom (talk) 15:47, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Just my thoughts Edit

Just letting you know what I thought after I saw your note "needs a major cleanup" following the work on the article. I know that I am not perfect in speaking (and writing) English but the edits you described as "major cleanup" are just some wording tweaks you might think sound better when reading the article. Well, there was one typo. I have no problem with these changes and it won't affect any future projects and edits here on MA working on with you. But the way you described this gave me some unfriendly thoughts. Anyway, keep up the good work. Tom (talk) 15:47, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Tom. It seems that came across with more emphasis than I intended it to, so I apologize. --Defiant (talk) 16:09, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Citation Edit

Could you please revert your last edit (reverting my edit)? This page, listed in the real world section under "Commentaries" says why. Thanks. Tom (talk) 12:19, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of that error. I've now corrected it. -- Defiant (talk) 15:28, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

You don't think discussing such a change to a policy on the talk page would be a better way than simply editing it? Who said it was an error? Tom (talk) 15:56, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation linksEdit

Yet again, please don't link stuff to disambiguation pages. "Engine" and "Hawk" are not articles. I was guessing for the engine one, but if we don't know... don't link to the disambiguation.

Also, breaking up proper names to add "context" links isn't a good thing. "Pyrithian moon hawk" is a proper name, so we shouldn't be linking each of the three words separately. All or nothing. "Moon" and "hawk" are irrelevant links in the context of that particular bat page. -- sulfur (talk) 17:17, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

I am the one who placed these links at first and didn't check them. Just building the web. Thanks for the info, sulfur. Tom (talk) 17:22, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

In those cases, either the disambiguation pages should not be purely disambiguation pages, or help build the web (as Tom said) by creating a new article that IS appropriate. Once again, I disagree with you that helpful links are somehow "irrelevant". --Defiant (talk) 17:38, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Btw, might you also explain precisely what you find grammatically problematic with the sentence, "It had an engine and a suspensor coil."?? --Defiant (talk) 17:42, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Citation request Edit

As you own the script of "Regeneration", could you maybe add a citation (script + page) to the two notes in the background section (Script) of the episode. I don't know if you've added these two points before. Thanks. Tom (talk) 21:13, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'll do my best to help. :) --Defiant (talk) 21:24, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
Apologies; I thought you meant they were notes I'd added. As it stands, I know just as much as you do (currently having access to only the final draft script of the episode, rather than the first draft teleplay or a story outline). Despite my best wishes, I'm therefore unable to help. I'm extremely sorry. I'll let you know if my circumstances, re: "Regeneration", change (it'll be noted on my user page, along with all other script sources I own). --Defiant (talk) 21:36, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you though. Tom (talk) 22:24, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Edit

Please don't simply revert my edit. Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings clearly says AE instead of BE. So could you please undo your revert of my edit? Thanks. Tom (talk) 17:32, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Errm... I'm not sure what you mean. I don't recall anything about "AE" versus "BE". Can you be a little more specific, please? --Defiant (talk) 17:35, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

American English vs. British English....just follow the link I've posted above. Tom (talk) 17:38, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Judgment Script Edit

Your list of scripts indicates that the script for ENT: Judgment is available online but I haven't been able to find it. Can you tell me where it is? I'm trying to find out if the character Memory Alpha calls Asahf is really called that.

Also, do you know anyone who has the scripts for TOS: I, Mudd and VOY: Child's Play? The characters Annabelle series, Trudy series, Mala (Brunali) and Remi were never specifically identified in the episodes and I'm trying to find out if Memory Alpha has the right pictures. NetSpiker (talk) 05:28, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

I can't help you with the VOY script, but a copy of the "I, Mudd" script is available here: [5].
There's also an online script library here: [6]. If you access the "Enterprise" folder, you'll find the script for "Judgment". --Defiant (talk) 08:06, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Thanks for keeping us abreast of availability of scripts; your last note on "Babel" helped me to clear up some issues on the Jefferies tube, which had been nagging me for some time...Awsome work!--Sennim (talk) 14:10, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

Glad it's been of some assistance. --Defiant (talk) 14:59, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

Input appreciatedEdit

See here: [7] --LauraCC (talk) 20:07, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the notification. :) --Defiant (talk) 20:14, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you could find this out too? (@ Talk:Breaking the Ice (episode)) --LauraCC (talk) 22:09, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Yet another request to check something in a script Edit

I hope by now you're not cursing yourself for starting that epic script collection, what with all these people constantly bothering you to check on stuff... but anyway, I'm pretty sure that Chez Sandríne ought to be spelled without that weird accent on the i, but before I put up it up for a rename I feel I should do my due dilligence, which in this case doesn't mean doing something myself but rather asking you to do something :p Would it be possible to check how the name is spelled in scripts? I've already cross-checked its list of appearances with your script list, the script you'll be needing is "Lifesigns". Thanks in advance! -- Capricorn (talk) 08:12, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I love finding requested script details, and anything I can do to help the community is very much approved by me. :) I'll look up that script and get back to you.... --Defiant (talk) 08:16, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
In the final draft script of "Lifesigns", it's consistently referred to as "HOLODECK/SANDRINE'S BAR", with no accent on the letter "i". --Defiant (talk) 08:28, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, and fast too. Thanks a lot. Oh, and feel free to contribute an expert opinion here ;) -- Capricorn (talk) 09:57, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've inputted my opinion. --Defiant (talk) 10:35, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

Pages for deletionEdit

You nominated "Grandfather paradox"... can you make sure to fill out a rationale/etc here: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Grandfather paradox. -- sulfur (talk) 11:38, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Done. Meant to do it earlier but got a bit preoccupied with other matters. Sorry. --Defiant (talk) 12:08, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up Edit

Fyi I've nominated a page you've recently created for deletion. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:21, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me apprised, Capricorn. :) --Defiant (talk) 08:39, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Pursuant to expanding antenna Edit

The background info lists Xindi-Insectoids as having antenna, though they were never mentioned by name in the dialogue. Is there anything in the script's description of any ENT episodes that mention antenna by name? --LauraCC (talk) 21:10, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. --Defiant (talk) 08:25, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions Edit

Please create the deletion discussion when proposing a file or article for deletion. Would be great if you could a "rationale" for this deletion request from 28 February 2016. Thank you. Tom (talk) 18:05, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Regarding disagreements Edit


I hear cats have a proven soothing effect on people

Even though in hindsight I guess it was obvious, I hadn't realize to what extent you had developed such a grudge against me. (how's that for a bad trait for a potential admin :D)
Look, we have a disagreement and I see no point trying to fight that out here, nor do I expect to turn everything around by writing this, but I do figure there is some serious room for deescalation at least. And I hope I'm not foolish for trying to go there.
For example, please understand that I'm absolutely not opposed to using names from script sources. You've recently said that you welcome nuance, but yet when you surmise my opinion I feel you are ignoring my arguments and mischaracterizing what I want completely. There's a difference between disagreeing with an argument and outright not considering them, and your comments almost read to me like the latter is the case. No doubt however that's happening isn't intentional on your part, but regardless, it's very frustrating to feel my arguments not rebuffed or even dismissed, but to read reactions that feel like what I posted wasn't even there.
I'm trying to not dogmatically impose my views, but to debate and work with others. But I might as well be honest about this, just because you have started to refuse addressing issues I've tried to raise I'm not going to stop flagging what I believe to be problems, and without discussion to move things forward, that's doomed to include the exact same type of thing you're now refusing to explain yourself about. (I could put that way more bluntly too: if what you're hoping to achieve by saying you refuse to consider concerns is that I stop posting them, then you're engaging in bullying tactics) Anyway, you might say that me continuing to come back to this is problematic because I don't understand policy, but I feel that what you claim I believe doesn't correspond with my views, even though I have tried to explain them.
What I think is crucial overall is that discussion can continue to happen on the issues we disagree on. That may seem futile, but without it this is not going to heal. But don't feel a need to respond to this if this whole thing just makes you roll your eyes. I'm not trying to score righteousness points here, just foster whatever little bit of understanding there might be room for. And if that didn't work there's just absolutely no point to this turning into another round of disagreement. Apologies for the long post in any case, I really ought to work on my brevity. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:19, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

Help me possibly?Edit

Can you read the other names on the image @ Enrollment record? --LauraCC (talk) 17:26, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

I actually didn't know who to ask, because I can't remember who's best at those things. --LauraCC (talk) 17:12, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the only reason I knew Pacific Bell (student) was on there was because of Chakoteya. --LauraCC (talk) 19:55, May 13, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as long as you're fixing ENT characters citations, Gannet Brooks needs some too. --LauraCC (talk) 18:21, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Just saw these messages. Apologies for taking so long to respond. Also, I'm afraid I'm not the best to ask to identify tiny writing; sorry. As for Gannet Brooks, if that issue still remains when I come to study the episodes she's in, I'll attempt to clear it up. --Defiant (talk) 20:48, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea who could read that writing? --LauraCC (talk) 20:54, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. --Defiant (talk) 20:59, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

IDW Image Deletion Edit

Apparently my last grammatical edit also deleted the IDW image of Gary Mitchell that had been added in the previous edit (I thought I had refreshed to a new page so that wouldn't happen). Thanks for correcting that; it was not my intention to delete the image. cvalin (talk) 17:18, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'm unsure why your edit would have "deleted" the image, but anyway; moving on.... --Defiant (talk) 17:23, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
He looks kinda squashed, as does Rand. I dunno how to fix that. --LauraCC (talk) 20:56, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the problem. Rand looked to me as if she was Bajoran or something, though, so I uploaded a different shot of her. --Defiant (talk) 21:47, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you de-orphan the rest of the images I just uploaded, maybe add their female/male names? I have to go soon and don't want someone to remind me about them. And please find one of "Keensera" and a better one of Mccoy. --LauraCC (talk) 21:52, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
I consider that very irresponsible, Laura. For starters, I am not your servant, and have other things that consume my time than having to desperately try to clean up your mess. A much better way you could have done things would have probably been to wait til you came back before uploading so many unneeded images. And as for that, may I remind you Memory Alpha is not an image gallery. To make matters even worse, a lot of the files you've uploaded are missing the necessary copyright info and look like shabby uploads. I'm extremely shocked by your careless attitude. --Defiant (talk) 22:44, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. That wasn't my intention. I lost track of time. Thank you so much for helping out. Is there anything I can do? --LauraCC (talk) 13:13, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. :) --LauraCC (talk) 16:24, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Re the corpse from "Future Tense"Edit

Isn't that already here? Or did you want the full body shot? --LauraCC (talk) 13:55, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

Hi. What do you mean now? I don't recall requesting an image of that corpse! --Defiant (talk) 14:12, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was you who listed it on the requested files page, there's a long list. I was trying to make up for yesterday by adding things you requested if I could find them. :) --LauraCC (talk) 14:17, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

I got three images, two for Organic grenade (one of grenade, one of darts) and one for the "Dead Stop" healing machine. Struckthrough pending approval. And I found therein another reference for dart. :) --LauraCC (talk) 14:25, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Trekcore has the one from "Real Life" you want. --LauraCC (talk) 16:45, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

?! Can you please stop being so vague? --Defiant (talk) 16:49, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The shot from The Doctor's lab requested at Memory Alpha: Requested files. --LauraCC (talk) 14:14, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

Name spellingEdit

I saw you have access to Storm Front, Part II (episode)'s script on your list. Can you settle the question @Talk:Nicky Jorjo? --LauraCC (talk) 16:46, June 7, 2016 (UTC) Never mind. Somebody else beat you to it. --LauraCC (talk) 17:02, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Resolved. -- sulfur (talk) 17:03, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Stop Edit

I highly advise you to drop it, whatever 'it' is, and move on. I don't want to block you but I will if necessary to end this disruption. 31dot (talk) 23:16, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what? What is "it"? Why the threats of blocking? And what disruption am I causing? I don't understand. --Defiant (talk) 23:19, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the issue is but I don't think Archduk wishes to discuss the subjects you have brought up on his page any longer. And, you don't get to decide how he organizes his talk page. 31dot (talk) 23:23, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Not even when it names me, in a way I find highly insulting? I prefer my username not to be dragged through the dirt by him, thanks very much. Are you seriously trying to tell me I don't have a choice about preventing it being used in such a disrespectful way?! Because if that is really the case, I will indeed stop using this site. --Defiant (talk) 23:28, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is "insulting" about it? It's not a personal attack, it is how he views your comments. I think you are being a bit oversensitive on this matter. 31dot (talk) 23:35, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't persuaded me to subscribe to it myself. I still find the name insulting, as I believe the name implies I keep complaining, when really nothing could be further from the truth (at least IMO). Now, can you please answer my question, rather than deflecting in exactly the same way as he has done? Can the name please be changed, due to my feelings that it is insulting, or not? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --Defiant (talk) 23:42, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

I would first say that what you should have done was request someone else look at the matter instead of simply reverting it. In my opinion, unless the comment is a personal attack (example "JohnPublic's stupid comments" or "That stupid JohnPublic is at it again") you have no right to decide how other users organize their talk pages. Would you want someone changing your page? That's just my opinion, feel free to get another. 31dot (talk) 23:49, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

That all leaves aside the fact that you reverting it only carries the dispute further. It should stop. 31dot (talk) 23:51, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Definitely if someone felt any of the headers on my talk page were offensive, I'd certainly quite happily change them to something much more suitable; it's usually called being reasonable. Personally, I've had enough of Archduk's cursing and misusing edit summaries to keep making veiled criticisms of others' work. Goodbye, 31dot, and MA community at large. It's been... fun. --Defiant (talk) 23:59, June 10, 2016 (UTC)

No one can force you to come here, but this seems an overreaction as there are other ways to deal with this. However, if you feel this was the right decision, very well. 31dot (talk) 09:40, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

And yet you somehow didn't think it was an overreaction to threaten me with blocking from the site, even though you were clearly unsure of precisely what was going on?! Gotten sick of admins deflecting to the Nth degree rather than taking responsibility for themselves. I'm out of here; goodbye. --Defiant (talk) 09:56, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

I am deflecting nothing, but I call them as I see them. As I indicated, it was just my opinion and I invited you to get another. It looks like the situation with the header was addressed- but it does not change my view that one should not change how other people organize their user talk pages, at least not without seeking an outside party's assistance. 31dot (talk) 19:44, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you're keeping the conversation going, since the reason you contacted me was ostensibly because you wanted to end the discussion, and I've now said "goodbye" twice. In your own words, "I highly advise you to drop it, whatever 'it' is, and move on." --Defiant (talk) 19:54, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

"Point of Extinction"?Edit

It's not listed on the Undeveloped Star Trek: The Animated Series episodes page. Where did you see this proposed episode? --LauraCC (talk) 14:36, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

The script is here: [8] --Defiant (talk) 14:39, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Cool. :) --LauraCC (talk) 14:52, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

It appears the last page or so is missing though. --LauraCC (talk) 15:06, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

That's disappointing, but thanks for notifying me. It's about double the length of a TAS script anyway, as most of the others I've uncovered have only 20-odd pages. --Defiant (talk) 15:10, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

I say this because when I get to the end, the last page has "as:", indicating a transition. I think what may be missing is the punchline to the final joke. There's also a part where a descriptive passage has faded away on the right side of the page. --LauraCC (talk) 15:12, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted that. --Defiant (talk) 15:22, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

It may not have been made because it was a) too long, b) another episode that featured fewer crew members (although depending on who voiced who, it might ultimately have been cheaper to make), and c) the themes of racism might have been too emphasized for child viewers. An interesting concept, though. --LauraCC (talk) 15:25, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

I thought it may have relied too heavily on viewers' foreknowledge, re: Trek species, concepts, etc. Aside from that, iirc, when the deal was made for the animated series to be produced, a series run of 22 episodes was intended right from the get-go. So, it may be that there wasn't enough episode blocks to allow for the making of this episode, as they were all reserved for other stories. In conclusion, there seems a multitude of possible reasons why "Point of Extinction" wasn't produced. --Defiant (talk) 15:40, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Pol link fixesEdit

Note: I can run a bot to fix 'em all later tonight. I'm presuming that the spelling came from the script... was her name ever seen on screen (credits or otherwise)? -- sulfur (talk) 16:20, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. It's just that I had a look at the article's talk page and it seems pretty conclusive, from that, that all sources say "Danara". Both the first draft and final draft of the "Lifesigns" script has that, as well as the other sources given in the talk page. --Defiant (talk) 16:38, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Twelve billion Edit

Before we start an edit war I ask you to watch the actual episode. I've checked this several times and Phlox says "Well, billion of people sharing one continent." There is no mention of "twelve" regaring the population of Denobula. I don't know where your information comes from, I think the script, but the actual in-universe text has to reflect what was really said in the episode. Tom (talk) 08:07, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely made sure to watch the episode before changing the info, also checking the transcript; it's definitely "twelve billion". Perhaps you're watching a different edit than I am, though? --Defiant (talk) 08:11, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

I am watching the version on the ENT Season 2 Blu-ray. You? Btw, the transcripts are often wrong if you refer to the transcripts on chakoteya etc. Tom (talk) 08:15, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

I've now checked the version on Netflix, and the version on the ENT Season 2 Blu-ray. Both versions say the same: 12 billion. Re: your second point, I'm aware of that. Just wanted to get a second opinion, and it turned out to match what I see in the episode. --Defiant (talk) 08:23, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

So now what? It is definitly not twelve on my version. Tom (talk) 08:27, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

I suspect why this has come up is the way John Billingsley pitches the word "twelve"; he projects it quite a bit quieter than the word "billion", though he definitely says it. The answer to your question "so now what?" depends on how much evidence you're willing to settle for. Since the second opinion of the transcript wasn't sufficient for you to accept it as "twelve billion", do you know how much proof you do require? --Defiant (talk) 08:32, July 10, 2016 (UTC)
It's also "twelve billion" in the Blu-ray subtitles and in this transcript: [9]. --Defiant (talk) 08:35, July 10, 2016 (UTC)
...and in this transcript: [10]. --Defiant (talk) 08:37, July 10, 2016 (UTC)
...and in this transcript: [11]. Any more proof required? --Defiant (talk) 08:43, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course. As you said before. Transcripts can be wrong. I've started a discussion on Talk:Denobula because my comments here were rejected four times (edit conflicts). Tom (talk) 08:54, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

That's rather unfortunate; sorry about that. --Defiant (talk) 08:56, July 10, 2016 (UTC)


  • Is there any chance I could get access to the Enterprise scripts? if so send me an email to or message on here. Thanks.

Jkirk8907 (talk) 00:58, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Kelvin Timeline, etc Edit

I talk here only to reiterate that my comments on the "Alternate Reality" or "Kelvin Timeline" page are not meant to be a personal attack. It is not unreasonable that we have different views on this matter (or any other), and all we can hope to do it set out our arguments in the best way we know how, and hope the facts we bring up are convincing to the other parties.

P.S. I think it's awesome you're from Scotland. I have Scottish heritage on both sides of my family, but have never had the chance to visit my ancestral homeland. One day, perhaps. DesertFly3 (talk) 10:10, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy doing so if you do. As I have tried to explain, however, we don't have differing opinions about the adoption of "Kelvin Timeline"; I agree with you that it should be used. --Defiant (talk) 10:14, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

The Naked Time script Edit

Can you tell me if it's true that Eddie Paskey's character was called Ryan in The Naked Time script? NetSpiker (talk) 14:33, August 6, 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you email to find out. --Defiant (talk) 15:24, August 6, 2016 (UTC)

"Similitude" script question Edit

How is the name Steven spelled in the episode script for the following lines?

Phlox:Now all I need to do is find him a name. The crew's been offering suggestions but nothing sounds right. Steven, Enrique, Dennis. Dennis? You see my dilemma?

I've made name pages for Enrique and Dennis already, as I figured those were probably right. Check them too for me if you could? --LauraCC (talk) 15:39, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

"Steven" and "Dennis" are script spellings. But the other one's "Enriquez". --Defiant (talk) 19:25, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation and corrections. LOL I thought "Steven" had more permutations than the others. But this is Trek, after all. --LauraCC (talk) 18:24, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

"The Catwalk" Edit

Hey. You have the script, right? Could you please add the date here? Thank you. Tom (talk) 13:48, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

I have a script for "The Catwalk". Unfortunately, it's a post-production final final draft, however, which has revision dates of the (previously issued) final draft but not the first date on which that final draft was delivered. --Defiant (talk) 15:29, August 14, 2016 (UTC)
Having said that, I asked someone who did know the script date for the final draft. :) --Defiant (talk) 19:54, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Corporal Askwith Edit

Hello, if you have access to ENT scripts, can you please look into how this character and the other security personnel at the United Earth Embassy were described in that of "The Forge"? They have been categorized here as Starfleet based on their uniforms, but their shoulder patches identify them as United Earth Diplomatic Corps, and Askwith had the rank of Corporal (leading to speculation that he was intended to wear a MACO uniform). I'd just like to know what if anything the script specified about these characters. Thanks.--Side Rat (talk) 08:32, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

Sure. In the scripted stage directions, Askwith is commonly referred to as "Guard" or "Embassy Guard" (the latter even used to refer to him in the script's cast list). He's called "Corporal Askwith" only in a single line of dialogue. It's not revealed, either, whether he was to be affiliated to Starfleet/MACOs/etc. But the aforementioned cast list does state "Human Embassy Staff", suggesting there weren't to be any aliens among them, Askwith himself is described as Human, and the initial description of the Embassy itself refers to the people there as "a few N.D. Starfleet personnel, Human staff, and Vulcan visitors." Though the script doesn't include any references to MACO at all but does repeatedly refer to Starfleet in relation to the Embassy, I think it's reasonable to assume that, if anything, Askwith and his co-workers were intended to be either all Starfleet officers or a mix of both Starfleet and civilian. That's just a speculation, though, as the script doesn't directly give any way to tell. I hope my reply helps, somewhat. --Defiant (talk) 14:11, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! "N.D." is screenwriter's shorthand for "non-descript" I take it? Can you give some examples of other ways the script "refers to Starfleet in relation to the Embassy"? Also, are these scripts available online somewhere? I haven't been able to find them, unlike the TNG and DS9 ones (plus just a few from VGR) which can be found here: --Side Rat (talk) 23:58, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, please learn to do indents properly; the number of colons before your messages should remain consistent throughout a discussion (in other words, in this conversation, your first post had no colons, and therefore any subsequent posts you make to the same discussion should have zero colons). Secondly, yes, "N.D." is script talk for "non-descript". Thirdly, the script is in my personal collection (see my user page for a list of what's available online, in my personal collection, in books, etc.) Fourthly, I'll see what I can do about letting you know other ways Starfleet is scripted to be related to the Embassy. --Defiant (talk) 07:05, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Huh, I thought we were supposed to indent relative to the specific post we were replying to, i.e. my first post had no indent, so yours had one, and my reply to that would have two, and so on. I guess it's different here than Wikipedia; my mistake. Anyway, thanks again.--Side Rat (talk) 13:40, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

A few more VGR scripts for ya Edit

Hey, I just came across a few of these online that I didn't see on your list, including...

"Counterpoint"/"The Disease"/"Equinox" I & II/"Good Shepard"/"Lineage"

Here you go, if you're interested:

Cheers.--Side Rat (talk) 09:58, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you :) --Defiant (talk) 10:01, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines Edit

Hey there. I don't agree with your choice to remove all the filming info and info about the creation process of the performer's article and add it to the character page. According to the "perfect article" policy, especially the sentence "is long. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but long articles are considered better because they can cover the given topic much more thoroughly. This may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject. However, where such information is available, it should always be included.", I see no problem with having some of the information on both articles. Why are you so eager to have it removed from Linda Fetters? Tom (talk) 15:16, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finally getting in contact with me, rather than just reverting my edit! I absolutely agree with your quotation. However, I've made the edit because, if you look at Memory Alpha:Resource policy, you'll see, "The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one. For example, include information about Spock's species on the page for Vulcans, and not in every article that mentions Spock." This quote doesn't contradict yours (they're both great pieces of advice, imho). However, a lot of times, if we were to use every piece of info which applied to both a character and a performer on both pages, not only would we be violating the section I've quote, but it would result in massive amounts of unnecessary over-duplication of info. For example, virtually no unique bginfo would be on the page about the cat woman, as it almost all (apart from 2 paragraphs) potentially applies to both the character and the performer. In order to avoid such mass over-duplication of info, let's abide by the policies and guidelines, shall we? --Defiant (talk) 15:36, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

As you can see I did not "finally" get in contact with you but avoided to create an edit war. You can read the reason about my revert in the edit summary and instead of reverting that again it would be a good choice for you to start the contact. But for the more important thing. I am not quite sure the "Spock example" is really a good comparison as it covers two in-universe articles. Here we have an in-universe article you've decided to improve with realworld/background info. The previously added information about the performer's experience was completely removed from the performer article and added to the in-universe article. I am not happy with this and we can both check how many articles about the performers have anecdotes from their times on set. Should these anecdotes all be completely removed from their articles? This sounds wrong and would left no real "Trek" information on the realworld/performer articles, sections which are sometimes good for the article. I do agree with you that all the information you've added recently should not be copied to the performers article but there was a bit of information before you rewrote it which should remain because it makes the article more entertaining. Tom (talk) 15:58, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Which was? There's nothing on there I've found remotely "entertaining". And my answer to your question is "yes". I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree; I prefer to stick to the policies and guidelines, whereas you evidently don't. Goodbye. --Defiant (talk) 16:04, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+